.
.
.
I’ll be damned (and this time I really WILL be damned!) – that “lawyer” Lenore Albert (sometimes-Sheridan) who has taken to running as a Democrat for various offices, currently (and most ironically) District Attorney, has finally lost her ability to practice law. Depending on her behavior, this could be for either a year or thirty days. The wheels of justice sure do move slowly, especially when you’re waiting for the California Bar to act, as her many victims can attest, but they do finally get where they’re going, and stop. Feast your eyes:
The Orange Juice will have to take our time putting this whole thing into perspective, because seriously, this woman’s legal misdeeds stretch in all directions like the aftermath of a medieval battle. A good place to get a panoramic view of it (if you can pencil in sometime in your busy day for craziness-shadenfreude) is this lengthy and mortifying Liberal OC post/thread, from back when Dan Chmielewski decided to take Lenore under his wing. As enjoyable and enlightening as all the deserved venom from her critic/victims are the zombie-like comments from her “supporters,” which are reminiscent of the pro-cult comments on my Man Hee Lee story.
“Whoa” to those politicians who let her cozy up to them…
She made her mark, hurt the most people under the guise of helping them, and got into the most trouble, during the rash of illegal foreclosures earlier in this decade, when Occupy got involved. But, despite the nice-charitable-girl image she cultivated, she almost never worked pro bono, unless there was some great publicity to be gained.
Why is she now running for OC District Attorney, where all she’ll accomplish is stealing a few Democratic votes from Brett Murdoch with her questionable “civil rights attorney” ballot designation? Well, yes, of course, glory and ego. But can she actually do it now, with her license to practice law suspended?
So many questions, so much schadenfreude to indulge in! Anyone out there knowledgeable in Lenore Lore, please chime in! I gotta run…
***
Update: Much more
HERE
and HERE.
I would say that she is not eligible to run for DA. Its clearly stated that one must be an attorney in good standing licensed in the state of California to practice law. This suspension would disqualify her from running.
Sheryll Alexander I hope you are smiling 🙂 Rip Mrs. Kilgore and Koshak family I hope you get some solace
I hope the Democratic Party does the right thing and remove from being able to run and also make sure she DOES NOT get extra dem voting rights just because ran for office. This lady shouldn’t even be party of anything for the Dem party. How can we have this woman representing any constituent when she has been found guilty of stealing and shattering peoples lives. I hope DPOC steps up and removes any voting power this lady has.
It’s not up to the Democratic Party, which I’m confident won’t endorse her, as to whether she can run for this nonpartisan seat. And if I recall the Bylaws correctly, she would not become an automatic member of DPOC even if she won this race.
Ok. Since she ran for chair last year doesn’t she get some super vote or something like that? In that picture with Hans she said “her delegates.” Wasn’t sure what that means.
That wasn’t for being Chair, that was for being the highest Democratic vote getter in AD-72 last cycle.
This “attorney” Lenore Albert Sheridan who is no longer entitled to practice in CA — but is RUNNING FOR DA IN OC — has cost me more than $40K, fighting a false defamation claim against her. We just won in appeals court. Of course that cost me more money. When she realized she would have to pay my fee award, Yelp, and Ripoff report fee awards — she filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy just this March, 2018.
When she got her car repossessed by Ford Motor Company, she blamed me and others stating we “broke into her computer” and somehow did something or another to make her car not registered in CA for 3 years (oh sorry, she did not admit that!!) and somehow messed up her payments. Yet, Ford is moving for Relief from Stay in her Chapter 13 Bankruptcy for the JUDGMENT they have against her for…WAIT FOR IT … not registering a vehicle brought from Nevada into CA for 3 years, among other payment related issues.
You need only read Yelp and Ripoff report to see what her clients think of her. (Oh wait — after being sued the did hide some of those… well clients, feel free to speak up here!!)
When the Bar first took action against her, Lenore sued the Bar so she could claim any future action was retaliation. She lost. They started taking action. Here we are literally YEARS later and the first of multiple actions has FINALLY been taken.
So here you have a woman with many unhappy clients, who has cheated the state of CA by not registering her car, who has cheated Ford by not following their payment rules to the extent they repossessed her unregistered for 3 years vehicle, who filed a defamation lawsuit against people like me speaking out about her and attorneys who had gotten sanctions against her (and lost), who filed for Bankruptcy and who is suspended by the Bar for misconduct. (Oh, she blamed that on her clients, too. Are you kidding me?)
This woman is running for DA? Can you be DA if your law license is suspended?
Today this is #Justice for many who may be deceived.
Only the things i could tell you about this very sick person who sued my client.
Oh boy I wish you would speak out or your client. So many don’t because they are afraid especially from her she makes nasty threats.
“Can you be DA if your law license is suspended?”
That’s a very good question. Seems like the answer should be “no,” right?
Much more detail here:
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2018/albert030818.htm
and here:
http://www.barcomplaint.com/lawyer-stories/ripoffreport-com-wins-again-in-federal-appellant-court-prevailing-with-anti-slapp-defense-against-california-attorney-lenore-albert/
Yes. I am the “Ragland” in Albert v. Ragland.
After oral arguments, she offered to “make a deal” for me to pay her $75K and help her in her claims against someone or another regarding Ford. Are you kidding me?
Since I won, and I did nothing wrong anyway but get indignant when she posted to Facebook about myself, my 12 YO daughter and other foreclosure fighters who were onto her “These people are and/or can be dangerous” and that I was “investigated for murder” and “I don’t know the criminal history of (someone)” implying she DID know mine…
I had enough, posted her comments to Facebook (I had her blocked, someone was so appalled they sent them to me) — and she had her cohort Ronald O’Donnell (who ironically has also run for election, and was fired from a bank for setting up his own company and taking a deposit for a loan at the bank he worked at, and putting it in his own account)… She had him report my post as “harassment” then sued US for defamation.
This shows you the nature of Lenore Albert, in a nutshell.
I will now gladly rave about the ethical superiority of my GOP incumbent District Attorney:
. . .
Oh.
Right.
wish you could, wish you could…
Time for a change, no question.
Why hasn’t OC investigated all this bank fraud, but LA has? I personally found a company who was selling homes BEFORE the notice of default or sale was even filed. This is criminal. I found 21 houses so far… .they bought 850 in OC from banks.. clearly these were back door deals.
Now WHY did our DA say this is a civil matter? I’m not even an attorney and I know that’s not true. Tsk TSk
There is no single person less suitable to be a DA than Lenore Albert, with or without her damn -Sheridan
Well, you know, I hate to quibble with someone of Lenore’s obvious stature, but there is no such thing as a decapitated head.
There are decapitated bodies, but they would be almost impossible for kids to haul to school for show and tell.
Her admittedly few followers are cult-like indeed. What are those people thinking? Do they really think that all the talk about her pending suspension was just bunk? Even though it was accessible on the State Bar website, the LA Times, and the OC Register? Do they bother to look these things up, to see what the charges were, whether her “story” makes any sense?
Is it fundamentally honest to be running for an office which requires admission to practice law as one of its basic qualifications, while one has a pending suspension, plus two more incomplete cases coming down the pike?
This woman isn’t even historically a democrat, rather, she’s all over the place. A couple of years ago she sued the HBPD for accompanying a client to pick up files at her office. Now she wants to be a part of law enforcement.
Really, what this woman wants is, well yeah, fame and glory as your article said. Maybe someday she’ll be a cult leader. A sort of Lydon LaRouche type will a few deluded and sycophantic followers hanging on her every word.
To: Vern Nelson and Greg Diamond:
I demand you retract your story stating I was suspended, implying there is a current “suspension:” and your comments and every word you wrote including but not limited to:
“She made her mark, hurt the most people under the guise of helping them, and got into the most trouble, during the rash of illegal foreclosures earlier in this decade, when Occupy got involved. But, despite the nice-charitable-girl image she cultivated, she almost never worked pro bono, unless there was some great publicity to be gained. Why is she now running for OC District Attorney.”
Sincerely,
Lenore L. Albert, Esq.
– Candidate for O.C. District Attorney
– Vice Chair of Credentials Committee
Law Offices of Lenore Albert
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above only. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. If you are not the intended recipient you are directed to notify this law office, then delete this message and destroy any copies thereof.
Heh, I guess that’s the passage that offends her the most. But I most enjoy the word “imply.” I didn’t realize we IMPLIED that she’d been suspended. I tried very hard to state it plainly.
I’m sorry I took a little while to respond to Lenore’s e-mail. I was out shopping for a violin to play for her, but there were none quite small enough.
Good to know there’s another reader.
Lenore Albert aka Lenore Albert-Sheridan has jumped the shark. This probably deserves its own post, but since the persons who run this blog are named in the attached, I thought I would link to it here. Lenore has filed a lawsuit against everyone. Well, not everyone, that would take up too much paper (and pixels). But NEARLY everyone, including the State Bar and its employees, the OC Board of Supervisors, Citibank, Pam Ragland, Greg Diamond, Vern Nelson, and virtually every other person or entity which has given her funny facial expressions or (God forbid) called her a poopypants in recent memory.
Have a gander!
https://www.scribd.com/document/374621465/Lenore-Albert-Sheridan-s-crazy-ass-Complaint-where-she-sues-the-entire-world
If this doesn’t put an end to any question about whether Albert is fit for office, nothing will.
That link’s not good. Are we being sued for reals?
Well, that’ll be a little adventure. After being threatened for so many years and it never happening.
Maybe I should advertise this story on Facebook then she can sue them too!
She’s filed a case for defamation, RICO, aggravated “knowing George Olivo,” and various other things. Whether she actually tries to serve us is another question. The clock for our response doesn’t start ticking until she does so.
If she does do so, then you and I will talk about this. I’m told that she has lost several anti-SLAPP suits (tossing out defamation and related offenses) in the past — which generally means paying the opponents’ fees and costs — making me wonder how she can still afford clothes, gas, and toilet paper.
Her knowledge of reputation related torts (such as defamation and her seeming new favorite, “false light”) strikes me as spotty at best. If the women had any assets left after her recent bankruptcy filing we’d end up with our share of them. More than this I will have to say offline, simply because she and I are now actively involved in litigation in the Daniels case, and I’m going to limit the comments that she can read here — and She Who Shall Not Be Ignored clearly reads us A LOT — if I want what I discuss to be a surprise.
Here it is, me and Greg are listed along with like seventy other defendants, all colluding with each other against poor Lenore; of course we haven’t been served yet, but we do learn that “defendant never directly threatened to decapitate anybody.” And also Sovereign Citizens extremists!
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Lenore-Complaint.pdf
Can you “indirectly” threaten to decapitate someone?
I just did. But nobody noticed.
Congrats Lenore, on your NEW charges of MORAL TURPITUDE http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/16-O-12958-2.pdf
COUNT FIVE
Case No. 16-0-1295 8
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1)
[Failure to Release File]
6. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1), by failing to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property, as follows: On February 11, 2016, and on July 1, 2017, respondent’s client, Nira Schwartz-Woods, instructed respondent to release her file materials and documentation to her. To date, respondent has not released to Schwartz—Woods her papers and property.
7. By not releasing Schwartz-Woods’s papers and property to her at SchwartzWoods’s request, respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property.
COUNT SIX
Case No. 16-0-12958
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d)
[Seeking to Mislead a Judge]
8. Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d), by seeking to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law, as follows: on or about November 4, 2016, respondent attached as “Exhibit E” to her “Motion to Quash Subpoena for Non—Trust Fund Banking Records” which she filed with the State Bar Court in State Bar Case No. 16-O-12958, a document which she falsely declared under the penalty of perjury to be a “true and correct copy of my retainer with Nira Woods for $20,000.00” which she knew to be a false document at the time she made the declaration and provided it to the State Bar Court.
9. By filing with the State Bar Court a document which she knew to be false, and by falsely declaring under the penalty of perjury that it was a “true and correct copy of my retainer with Nira Woods for $20,000.00,” respondent sought to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
COUNT SEVEN
Case No. 16-0-12958
Business and Professions Code, section 6106
[Moral Turpitude: Misrepresentation to State Bar]
10. Respondent intentionally violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, by committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: on or about November 4, 2016, respondent attached as “Exhibit E” to her “Motion to Quash Subpoena for Non-Trust Fund Banking Records” which she filed with the State Bar Court in State Bar Case No. 16-O-12958, a document which she falsely declared under the penalty of perjury to be a “true and correct copy of my retainer with Nira Woods for $20,000.00” which she knew to be a false document at the time she made the declaration and provided it to the State Bar Court.
11. By providing to the State Bar Court a document falsely purporting to be “true and correct,” which respondent knew to be false at the time she made the declaration and provided it to the State Bar Court, respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.
12. A violation of section 6106 may result from intentional conduct or grossly negligent conduct. Respondent is charged with committing intentional misrepresentation. However, should the evidence at trial demonstrate that respondent committed misrepresentation as a result of gross negligence, respondent must still be found culpable of violating section 6106 because misrepresentation through gross negligence is a lesser included offense of intentional misrepresentation.
COUNT EIGHT
Case No. 16-O-10548
Business and Professions Code, section 6103
[Failure to Obey a Court Order]
13. Respondent disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring respondent to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of respondent’s profession which respondent ought in good faith to do or forbear by failing to comply with the court’s minute order dated February 10, 2015 , which required that respondent pay a sanction of $875 in the case entitled Bonnie L. Kent and Teri Sue Kent Love in their capacity as Joint Trustees of the James Kyle Kent, Jr. “Spousal Trust” et al. v. Fin City Foods, Inc., et al., Orange County Superior Court case number 30-2014—O0713792—CU-MC—CJ C within 30 days of service of notice of ruling, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6103.
DATED: May 14, 2018 By:
NOTICE — INACTIVE ENROLLMENT!
YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE STATE BAR COURT FINDS, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6007(c), THAT YOUR CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT OF HARM TO THE INTERESTS OF YOUR CLIENTS OR TO THE PUBLIC, YOU MAY BE INVOLUNTARILY ENROLLED AS AN INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR. YOUR INACTIVE ENROLLMENT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO ANY DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT.
NOTICE – COST ASSESSMENT!
IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEDURES RESULT IN PUBLIC DISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE STATE BAR IN THE INVESTIGATION, HEARING AND REVIEW OF THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10.
*****************
You smell DA material? Me either.
But this IS the choice of Dan Chmielewski, the Liberal OC, and “OC DEM” … only because this blog opposes her. Thanks for helping re-elect Rackauckas, jerkoffs.