Bar Complaint > Attorney Ken Gorman & Attorny Ian Rivamonte (acting as a Judge at that time)
Bar Complaint > Attorney Ken Gorman & Attorny Ian Rivamonte (acting as a Judge at that time)
Embedded Files
Attorney Ken Gorman
On 5/23/2025 Bar Complaints were filed against Attorney Ken Gorman of Santa Cruz CA and Judge Ian Rivamonte of the Monterey County Superior Court.
There are over 40 allegations for Bias, Fraud and/or Racketeering between this bar complaint and a companion complaint sent to the California Commission on Judicial Performance against Rivamonte .
At the bottom of this web page you will find the Bar Complaint documents. The Judicial Complaint can be found here.
Between here and the bottom of this page, you will find a sampling of information related to both of the complaints that screams, "something is very wrong here".
To be clear. While we may be able to speculate on reasons they did what they did, the first part in any complaint process is to simply identify "what they did" -- and that's all that this first level of the presentation is intended to do.
Judge Ian Rivamonte
The cover page of the Bar Complaint reveals a "Big Picture" overview of concerns.
It exposes the idea that each of these individuals was engaging in commercial frameworks that had been established by others years or decades prior to their engagement as "officers of the court".
What seems apparent is that anyone who wants to engage in civil law as an "officer of the court" in CA would eventually find themselves in situations where the confusion of statutes and precedents by people prior to them encourages them -- or actually even requires them -- to engage in unethical and unlawful practice -- to conceal prior statutory and precedent based manipulations that furthered commercial schemes that helped all CA Civil Attorneys. In this case schemes are exposed that had created inherent biases for defendants in contract disputes and/or fraud to induce a contract cases.
The complaints against Gorman and Rivamonte are comprehensive. The goal with this web page is not to present all of that information.
Instead this page starts by focusing on one really strange conflict between Gormans motion document and Rivamonte's order which can have NO EXPLANATION that exonerates him, or them, from the execution of a $120k shakedown scheme.
Per Attorney Ken Gorman his motion for Attorney Fee Shifting was for "abuse of litigation"
Per Attorney Ken Gorman his motion for Attorney Fee Shifting was for "abuse of litigation"
BUT Per Judge Rivemonate, it wasn't at all ?!?
If they can't get each others positions right, what's left to discuss?
BUT Per Judge Rivemonate, it wasn't at all ?!?
If they can't get each others positions right, what's left to discuss?
On 3/3/2025, Attorney Ken Gorman of Santa Cruz CA filed a motion to shift $145,000 in Attorney fees from his client to the plaintiffs AFTER the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a complaint for fraud to induce a real estate Contract.
The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed after discovering the seller had lost his job, their concerns about his future employ-ability and lien collection concerns grew, and the "futility defense" he was funding was going to be impossible to circumnavigate to a win.
If Gorman's motion for Attorney fees was going to be successful, it had to be based on "bad behavior of plaintiffs" -- because any other basis would suggest the legal system offered no balanced protections at all to harmed parties that sought to pursue fraud to induce ANY contract.
YET, Gorman failed to include any statutes or precedents that supported a shift for abuse of process -- and that is because those precedents all required a "frivolous lawsuit" as an initial element -- and Gorman could not prove the lawsuit was frivolous based on his own failures to refute the complaint initially or during litigation.
How or why did Gorman expect to win a motion for "abuse of process" to relieve his client of $145,000 in legal fees with no relevant case precedents or statutes?
Attorney Ken Gorman's 159 page motion filing was inclusive of 14 pages of motion prose, 21 pages of billing records, and 100+ additional pages of exhibits.
The motion document was NOT written with clear enumeration of legal points and positions. That should make it suspicions to those who know how such documents should be written.
The initial motion filing contains subtle confusion and open logic loops in the prose that will cause a laymen to be misled -- but a professional can see he was attempting a confusion based win -- but one that would only work with the support of a Judge given the open logic loops and lack of reference to statutes or precedent to support his request.
On 4/2/2025, Attorney Ken Gorman filed a 9 page reply to Opposition to the Motion.
That shorter document is the best place to start, because it's there, with absolute clarity, that Gorman declares unequivocally that his primary basis for the shift was for "abuse of process" and/or "failure to comply with CCP", while still providing no case precedents for Judicial Discernment for that position.
Yet, 19 days later, on 4/21/2025, Judge Ian Rivamonte signed an order and instructed it to be mailed via USPS Mail. That order fully misrepresents Gorman's Motion documents. Rivamonte states, "The Defendant’s motion is based upon the agreement between parties ... rather than abuse of litigation” and with that act of fraud via misrepresentation and/or concealment was committed, while fabricating other confusion to justify an unlawful Order for a $118,000 shift in attorney fees after marking down the hourly rates.
Detailed Facts expose Misrepresentation and/or Concealment of Fact by Judge Ian Rivamonte...
Detailed Facts expose Misrepresentation and/or Concealment of Fact by Judge Ian Rivamonte...
On 4/2/2025, on page 7 of Gorman's reply to Opposition to the Attorney fee shifting motion, Gorman states:
“PLAINTIFFS CONDUCT MUST HAVE CONSEQUENCES - The court has discretion as to whether or not, and to what extent to award attorneys’ fees under these circumstances. It is hard to imagine a situation where an award of Attorney fees could be more justified and in fact ,imperative. Plaintiffs' assault on Mr. Forstein through the legal system was ill conceived from the beginning [ content omitted ] This was a calculated and protracted effort to try to pry hundreds of thousands of dollars from Mr Forstein by forcing him to defend himself against a meritless onslaught. The Court has an obligation to defend people like Mr Forstein from such ruthless and unethical conduct and a concurrent obligation to ensure people like Plaintiffs who abuse the system are held accountable for the misconduct. The minimum the court should do is to award Mr Forstein all his attorney fees.
Further allowing this type of misconduct to go unpunished could only encourage similar malfeasance by others.”
< click section to expand for document link and screenshot>
In the Motion Hearing on 4/11/2021 Judge Ian Rivamonte announced a preliminary decision to shift fees, BUT he said nothing about abuse of process.
Instead Rivamonte started Practicing Law from the Bench. Rivamonte presented two statutes and a case precedent Gorman had not presented at all, on behalf of the Defendant and Gorman, while engaging in Judicial Bias.
While that is a very important fact to investigate and it exposes other concerns, and those statutes and precedent can be found in his written order which was signed 10 days later , there is something easier to investigate first...
On 4/21/2025,on page 9, Line 18 of Rivamonte's Order, he stated,
“The Defendant’s motion is based upon the agreement between parties to pay attorney fees pursuant to paragraph 25 of the CAR Contract, rather than abuse of litigation” (emphasis ours)
On 4/21/2025,on page 3 Line 21 of Rivamonte's Order, he also stated,
“Defendant contends that is is entitled to an award for reasonable attorneys fees against Plaintiffs because 1) the CAR Contract’s Attorney fees binds the party 2) this action arises out of the CAR Contract and 3) Plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of their claims renders Defendant the “prevailing party” for attorney fees on the non-contractual causes of action”.
< click section to expand for document link and screenshot>
WHY DID JUDGE IAN RIVAMONTE FULLY and COMPLETELY MISREPRESENT GORMAN'S MOTION DOCUMENTS IN HIS ORDER WHEN DEMANDING A $118,000 SHIFT IN ATTORNEY FEES FROM DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFFS?
CAN IT BE SAID THAT JUDGE IAN RIVAMONTE ATTEMPTED TO STEAL $118,000 FROM THE PLAINTIFFS ON BEHALF OF GORMAN AND HIS CLIENT?
IF A JUDGE IS CAUGHT ENGAGING IN THEFT OF MONEY FROM THE BENCH,
IN FAVOR OF ANY PARTY, WHAT SHOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCE?
Between Gorman and Rivamonte, there is over 65 years experience in Law.
Are we to presume Rivamonte can't read?
Did Rivamonte even read Gorman's documents?
Did Rivamonte write his own Order?
Along those lines, did Gorman write his own motion documents, because they are NOT as organized as some emails he conveyed?
In addition to the obvious, What are other problems with these conflicting statements?
In the Following sections were are going to take Gorman and Rivamonte's Statements and dig further into them to see what else can be exposed...
Gorman stated on Page 7 of his reply to opposition,
"PLAINTIFFS CONDUCT MUST HAVE CONSEQUENCES - The court has discretion as to whether or not, and to what extent to award attorneys’ fees under these circumstances."
Questions that Challenge Gorman's ethical and legal compass:
What statutes or precedent offers discretion to Rivamonte for an award of attorney fees in a voluntary dismissal?
What statutes or precedent offers discretion to Rivamonte for an award of attorney fees for abuse of process?
Did Gorman quote any statutes or precedents in his motion document or the reply that identified the Judges source of Discreation??
Gorman is demanding $145,000 in attorney fee shifting. If he did NOT provide the legal basis for his demand in his motion documetns or reply, should Judge Ian Rivamonte been able to discern the absence of that information and what should he have done if he did?
Gorman provided no case precedents in his motion document that supported the award of legal fees for abuse of process and he failed to comment on those provided by plaintiff. Then, did Gorman or did he not provide a case precedent for attorney fee shifting for voluntary dismissals? if he did what statutes did he assocate with that precedent, and was it/those accepted or rejected by Rivamonte?
Gorman's Motion | Gorman's Reply to Opposition | Rivamonte's Order
Gorman stated on Page 7 of his reply to opposition,
"It is hard to imagine a situation where an award of Attorney fees could be more justified and in fact ,imperative. Plaintiffs' assault on Mr. Forstein through the legal system was ill conceived from the beginning…. This was a calculated and protracted effort to try to pry hundreds of thousands of dollars from Mr Forstein by forcing him to defend himself against a meritless onslaught …"
Questions that Challenge Gorman's ethical and legal compass:
If the complaint was meritless, as Gorman emphatically declares, where was the demurrer? Where was the motion to strike? Where were was the motion for summary judgement? How could he have run up a $145,000 legal bill defending a meritless complaint?
If the complaint was meritless, is he saying the 50 acts of fraud documented at https://canary-v-forstein.bryancanary.com/ are without merit?
if you reviewed the facts at https://canary-v-forstein.bryancanary.com/ , would you agree with Gorman that the complaint was illconconceived from the beginning?
If you found out Gorman's Client had been accused of running a mini-shake down scheme for $1200 on his neighbors prior to moving out would that decrease your view of Gorman's honesty?
If you found out Gorman's Client had denied the testimony of two of his prior neighbors who pet sat for him that testified to cat and dog urine issues in the home, would the decrease your view of Gorman's honesty?
If you found out Gorman's Client had gas lit his own wife and realtor via email, when he was first confronted with the cat urine damage, would the decrease your view of Gorman's honesty?
If you found out Gorman's Client and his realtor had provided false statements about their engagement with each other on disclosures, would the decrease your view of Gorman's honesty?
If you found out Gorman's Client was actually accused of FIFTY acts of misrepresenation iwth over 30 of those having quantifiable monetery value, would the decrease your view of Gorman's honesty?
Gorman's Motion | Gorman's Reply to Opposition | Rivamonte's Order
click her to expand a preview of https://canary-v-forstein.bryancanary.com/...
Gorman stated on Page 7 of his reply to opposition,
" The Court has an obligation to defend people like Mr Forstein from such ruthless and unethical conduct and a concurrent obligation to ensure people like Plaintiffs who abuse the system are held accountable for the misconduct. "
Questions that Challenge Gorman's ethical and legal compass:
As a 40 year Attorney, does Gorman really believe it' s the "court's obligation" to defend Forstein? Wasn't that his job? Where was his defense for the meritless onslaught? Where was his demurrer, motion to strike, motion for summary judgment and/or protective order?
What was the "ruthless" and "unethical" conduct that the plaintiffs exhibited? Is Gorman's statement of that without basis libelous, slanderous or fraudulent ?
If the court is deemed to be a Judiciary for holding plaintiffs responsible for abuse, where is the case precedent or statute Gorman is relying on for that abuse? why were none included in his motion documents?
Gorman's Motion | Gorman's Reply to Opposition | Rivamonte's Order
Rivamonte stated on page 9, Line 18 of his order,
“The Defendant’s motion is based upon the agreement between parties to pay attorney fees pursuant to paragraph 25 of the CAR Contract, rather than abuse of litigation”
Questions that Challenge Rivamonte's ethical, legal and literacy compass:
Is Rivamonte illiterate? If not, what happened? How could a "Judge" so badly mis construe a motion document?
Did the CAR Contract actually call for the payment of legal fees for fraud to induce the contract? Can any contract clause be used to negate or nullify or even refute claims for fraud to induce a contract given the fraud transpired PRIOR TO contract formation?
Gorman's Motion | Gorman's Reply to Opposition | Rivamonte's Order
Rivamonte stated on page 3, Line 21 of his order,
“Defendant contends that is is entitled to an aware for reasonable attorneys fees against Plaintiffs because 1) the CAR Contract’s Attorney fees binds the party 2) this action arises out of the CAR Contract and 3) Plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of their claims renders Defendant the “prevailing party” for attorney fees on the non-contractual causes of action”.
Questions that Challenge Rivamonte's ethical, legal and literacy compass:
Open Gorman's Motion Document and/or his Reply to opposition. See if you can find this succinct summary of Gorman's Position anywhere. If it's not there, why isn't i there? If it's not there, did Rivamonte just do an exceptional job of summarizing Gorman's documents? And is the summary complete? Where is the item that says he was asking for it for "abuse of process" as well ?
Bullet 1 - Does it make sense that Fraud to induce a contract could be defended with a clause in the contract that was falsley induced?
Bullet 2 - Did the fraud claims actually arise from the CAR Contract, or did they arise from Disclosure Docuemtns the seller signed 10+ days prior to forming a contract?
Bullet 3 - What statutes define plaintiff as prevailing party for voluntary dismissal? Did Gorman state those at all? if so on what page of his motion or reply are they stated? Does Rivamonte state those? If so what page does he do so?
Bullet 3 - What statutes or case precedents define an attorney fee award for "non contractual causes of action" and doe those apply to "voluntary dismissals"? Did Gorman state those at all? if so on what page of his motion or reply are they stated? Does Rivamonte state those? If so what page does he do so?
Gorman's Motion | Gorman's Reply to Opposition | Rivamonte's Order
What else did Judge Rivamonte's Order include that Gorman's Motion did not ?!?
What else did Judge Rivamonte's Order include that Gorman's Motion did not ?!?
Rivamonte stated on page 3, Line 9 of his order,
“On March 3, 2025, Defendant filed an instant motion for Attorney fees. Plaintiffs opposed the motion by filing a memorandum and nearly 130-page “Declaration of Plaintiffs” that seems to be an extension of the opposition memorandum””
Questions that Challenge Rivamonte's ethical, legal and literacy compass:
What is an "instant motion"? What is a "noticed motion"?
Why did Rivamonte use the reference to an "instant motion" out of context of fact and without reference to the length of Gorman's motion?
Given Gorman's motion was a 159 page "noticed motion", if he had said that, a 130 page declaration in response would not seem long. However, with the suggestion of "instant" blurring to "short" in a cognitie manner, and no reference to Gormans 159 pages, is this a "gross example" of written suggestion for perception executed by Judge Ian Rivamonte?
That's the only way that level of written manipulation can be interpreted.
Gorman's Motion | Gorman's Reply to Opposition | Rivamonte's Order
Rivamonte stated on page 4, Line 16 of his order,
“Here, the parties are bound by the CAR contract’s provisions including the attorney fees provision of paragraph 25 ”.
Questions that Challenge Rivamonte's ethical, legal and literacy compass:
In Gorman's Motion Document and his reply, can you identify the case precedent or staute which he used to claim the parties were bound to a contract who's formation was in dispute?
In order for a contract to be fully binding in CA it has to be formed properly. That requires 1) parties capable 2) mutual consent 3) lawful object and 4) consideration. In a complaint for fraud to induce a contrct, where "mutual consent" is being challenged, is a contract fully binding?
Gorman's Motion | Gorman's Reply to Opposition | Rivamonte's Order
Rivamonte stated on page 9, Line 6 of his order,
“A prevailing party includes the defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered [CCP 1032(a)(4)] Awardable “costs” may include attorney’s fees where they are authorized by contract, statute or law [See CCP 1033.5 sub (a)(10). The CAR contract allows reasonable attorney fees to Defendant as prevailing party ”.
Questions that Challenge Rivamonte's ethical, legal and literacy compass:
Does Gorman's Motion or reply mention CCP 1032 or 1033.5 at all? Should it? Why doesn't it? Is it relevant?
From CCP 1032 and 1033.5, when combined…
“a prevailing party is entitled as a 'matter of right' to recover costs in any action or proceeding”
“Prevailing party includes … a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered” >>>> note it does NOT state voluntary dismissal, just dismissal
“The following items are allowable as costs under Section 1032: Attorney’s fees, when authorized by any of the following: (A) Contract.”
"matter of right" and "may include" are incongruent.
Is Rivamonte quoting this statute out of context? Where does he get the idea that costs "may include attorney fees" -- the statute clearly says they are due as a "matter of right"
Gorman's Motion | Gorman's Reply to Opposition | Rivamonte's Order
Ian Rivamonte not only has no business being a Judge or an Attorney, he belongs in Jail, at a minimum.
Ian Rivamonte actively engaged in a scheme to illegally shift $145,000 in Attorney Fees from the Defendant to the Plaintiffs.
What were his motivations? Who motivated him?
Was it self driven? Was it Gorman? Was it connections to Gorman's Client?
Was it internal pressure from the Senior Judges?
Was it local real estate lobby interests? Was it some other force or interest?
Gorman's 41 Emails...
Gorman's 41 Emails...
Do they support $145,000 in billing?
Do they support $145,000 in billing?
Do they support his own Billing Records in part or at all?
Do they support his own Billing Records in part or at all?
Gorman's 41 Emails
Gorman made 38 replies to emails from August 2024 to December 2024.
Gorman made 3 replies to emails in April 2025
The total page count to document them with screen shots is about 35 pages, and actual written content is likely under 20 pages.
Is it possible to imagine Gorman billed $145,000 for 20 pages of email replies?
No single reply is over 1 page long, and most range from 1 line to under 1/4 of a page.
Gorman stated on Page 7 of his reply to opposition,
"Plaintiffs repeatedly violated the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Court, and sent hundreds of hostile emails, many of which had threats against Mr. Forstein and undersigned counsel. There is no excuse for the relentless and deliberate misconduct, failure to comply with proper procedures, profanity, and violation of all ethical protocols."
Questions that Challenge Gorman's ethical, legal and literacy compass:
From his replies can you imagine he actually experienced what he suggests with his Statements of abuse and abuse of process above?
Is Gorman creating an entirely false narrative related to this engagement?
Is it actually an inverted narrative to some degree?
Below is an enumerated list of Plaintiffs concerns about Gorman's own CCP compliance , possible ethics Violations and possible Fraud concerns -- this is just a portion of what is expressed in the Bar Complaint Against him. Do these qualify as CCP Violoations, Ethics Violatios, Fraud, Cander with the Court violations or other violations?
CCP Violation / Ethics Violation / Fraud - Gorman failed to meet and confer on complaint defects that prevented his client from identifying any statements of fact for 50 acts of fraud. Gorman tossed his client and plaintiffs into discovery with no proper statements of facts to investigate in discovery.
CCP Violation / Ethics Violation / Fraud - Gorman answered a verified complaint with no statement of facts sufficient for pleadings in a non-verified manner, creating a conflict for defendant adn plaintiff interests in discovery that would benefit him financially and not the parties to the complaint.
CCP Violation - Gorman failed to meet and confer prior to submitting his first Case Management Conference Statement.
Ethics Violation / Fraud - Gorman ignored three requests to clarify his position on attorney fees in the first 6 emails with plaintiffs, where they suggested if any attorney fees might apply they might dismiss given they knew "right didn't always win"
Ethics Violation / Fraud - Gorman replied to Admit documents for his client by stating "representations statements" are a vague concept. Without those there is no misrepresentation fraud. They are the basis for an entire line of law. What would his client have presumed because of his response?
Ethics Violation / Fraud - Gorman replied to Admit documents for his client by stating "contract formation" was a vague concept. CA statutes outline in detail what is involved in the contract formation process. What would his client have presumed because of his response?
Ethics Violation / Fraud - Gorman supported his client's statement that he disclosed cat urine, when he was in possession of a document showing gas lighting from his client to his wife and realtor.
Ethics Violation / Fraud - Gorman's request for Admits for his client appeared to be a template that had NOT been customized per the complaint facts. Furthermore, that template made suggestions about CA law that were not inline with actual statutes and case precedent.
Ethics Violation / Fraud - Gorman billed for time preparing a Motion to Consolidate and a Motion for Summary Judgement with no meet and confers and without ever filing those. Gorman Billed for many things that were seemingly irrelevant (see bar complaint)
Ethics Violation / Fraud - Gorman sent meet and confer email on 12/19/2024 that expressed concerns for Special Interogatory non compliance and provided plaintiffs until 1/3/2025 to comply. Then the next day he started drafted two motions to compel and he had those served on 12/23/2024 with no other notice. After 12/19/2024, Gorman had no more direct email dialogue with plaintiffs but he billed his client $40,000 in work.
See complaint for 22 enumerated allegations....
Do Gorman's 41 email responses reflect the concerns he expressed in his reply to opposition?
Is there any email response where Gorman states, "Mr.Plaintiff, for my clients billing sake, please keep the emails outside of direct discovery inquiries to a minimum.
Is there any email response where Gorman states, "Mr. Plaintiff, your discovery requests are abusive. If you don't modify them I will seek a protective order"
Is there any email response where Gorman states, "Mr. Plaintiff, if the profanity continues I will seek a protective order"
Do Gorman's 41 email responses reflect some of his billing activities?
Is there any email response where Gorman states, "Mr. Plaintiff, I'd like to meet and confer about a Motion to Consolidate. This should be consolidated for reasons x, y, and z, and if you do not agree I'll start writing a motion "
Is there any email response where Gorman states, "Mr. Plaintiff, I'd like to meet and confer about a Motion for Summary Judgement. I'm basing that on x, y, and z, and if you do not agree I'll start writing a motion "
If you review his email response, would you ever imagine he felt a need to call the Sherriff and have a consultation on fear for his safety and that of others? What date might that have happened based on his email replies? Why can that not be discerned in his emails yet if you review his billing, it's as if the sky was falling from a gunman in carmel. What was going on?
What is the actual relationship between Gorman, Gorman's Client and Judge Ian Rivamonte that would have encouraged the Judge to have done so much work for Gorman and his Client?
What is the actual relationship between Gorman, Gorman's Client and Judge Ian Rivamonte that would have encouraged the Judge to have done so much work for Gorman and his Client?
Something is very wrong with all of this. What is it?
Do these three people all belong to a shared social or religious group?
Do they belong to some "secret society"?
Was the behavior of Gorman and Rivamonte influenced directly or indirectly by Gorman's Client?
Was the behavior of Gorman and Rivamonte influenced by people in the Legal Lobby, the Real Estate Lobby, Politicians or others?
Was Gorman's Client going to be a "negligent beneficiary" of Gorman's Motion and Rivamonte's Order OR
was he a "conspirator" in fraud and/or or racketeering?
How much did Gorman's Client know about all these problems and the benefits he was gaining from Rivamonte?
If Gorman's Client demands the payment be made for the Order, after being informed of these facts,
if he was a "negligent beneficiary" before, does he become an "conspirator in fraud" ?
Does Gorman need to seek malpractice protection?
Can Gorman talk to his client now?
What should Rivamonte be doing right now?
Does Rivamonte need to seek an Attorney for Mal Practice Protection?
Has Rivamonte even been contacted by the Judicial Commission yet?
Should Rivamonte be allowed to continue to hear cases until he gets his "hearing"?
Who would "temporarily relive Rivamonte of duties" during an investigation?
If you were the Judge, what questions would you want to ask and to who?
If you were the Judge is there anything Gorman and Rivamonte could say to free themselves of Fraud?
Bar Complaint Documents
Bar Complaint Documents
Bar Complaint filed 5/23/2025 ( view in gDrive folder )
1) Bar Complaint Part 1 - 57 pages view
2) Bar Complaint Part 2 - 111 pages view
3) Gorman Motion For Atty Fees (pg 1-14) view primary motion pages
4) Gorman Motion for Atty Fee (pg 26-47) view exhibit: legal bill
5) Gorman Reply to Opposition (9 pgs) view this details abuse of process claim that Rivamonte claimed did not exist in his order
6) Order from Rivamonte 11 page view
7) Order from Rivamonte (via Gorman) view
8) Judicial Complaint - Rivamonte (66 pages) view
9) Gorman - 41 emails view Gormans 41 emails fit on 35 pages, with some annotation.
How did he get to $145k in billing? From the emails that's clearly impossible?
There is ZERO dialogue about Protective Orders, abuse, Motion for consolidation
There is ZERO dialogue about Motion for Summary Judgement
There is ZERO dialogue about the gunman photo. You'd never know it happened.
This shows his prose in his motion and reply to opposition was WAY over acted...
10) 20250530 Email w Pmt Letter to Seller view attachments -- > pmt letter - attached detailed letter
11) 20250602 - Email w pmt letter to County Leaders view
12) 20250605 - Letter to State and Fed Law Enforcement view DRAFT as of 6/5/2025
13) 20250606 Email with 2nd Letter to seller view attachment -- > attached letter
99) Notice to PCG (24 pages) view DRAFT as of 5/26/2205 (not sent yet)
NOTE:
1) Docs 2, 7, and 8 could not be submitted via the electronic complaint process due to 4mb file upload size limitations. The CA Bar needs far larger upload file limits or the volume of the nefarious acts by attorneys needs to decrease dramtically to fit into 4mb limits
2) Doc 9 - Gorman 41 emails added after complaint filing
xx) for the tracking details for Rivamonte's Judicial Counsel Complaint as separate from this, click here
Filing Confirmation Documents
Bar Complaint Online Submission Confirm view
Bar Complaint Confirmation - Gorman view 25-O-18667
Bar Complaint Confirmation - Rivamonte view 25-O-18668
The following items still need to be conveyed to CA State Bar. Their upload system maxed out at 4mb files.
F/U Concerns
20250602 - Attempted to call State Bar to discuss missing exhibits. On letters its 800- 843-9053 but that number won't take calls to toll free number from out of state phones, refs to 415-538-2000 or 213-765-1000. Called the 415 number. Answering system said hi call volume with 5 hour wait.
Drafts of Documetns not sent (yet..
Page updated
Report abuse