Bernath’s legal acumen

Email from Bernath:

I am in discussions about representing Paul Wickre against you and your publications for your intentional infliction of emotional distress and other causes of action.
Of course, I seek to mitigate any further damage to Mr. Wickre.
Therefore, it would behove you to not post any more statements meant to cause him to suffer intentional distress.
This letter shall be used in evidence against you if you further attack him in any way.

Daniel A. Bernath
Attorney at Law Calif 116636

Email from another Bernath client:

oHHHH, YOU TWISTED sON OF a bITCH OVER IN iNDIANAPOLIS

yOU ARE MAKING ME SO ptsd CRAZY….. LET’S GO DANCING mARKY mARK….

tHE LRrP 41 cOMETH, gOOBER..

Oregon Supreme Court finds Bernath lacks character to be Member of the Bar:

In its recommendation to this court, the Board identified the following allegations:
(A) He disobeyed a court order to pay child support.
(B) He was suspended for over a year in the State of California for failure to pay child support.
(C) He failed to inform the Board that he was suspended from the practice of law in the State of California and he lied to the Board about his suspension in California, stating that he was not suspended when he was in fact suspended.
(D) He loaned money to a client, Tamara Varner (‘Varner’), and collected on the loan from settlement proceeds from Varner’s lawsuit without Varner’s knowledge or agreement.
(E) He signed Varner’s name to a release without Varner’s knowledge and without advising the opposing party or counsel for the opposing party that he was signing the release on behalf of Varner. On that same release he signed as a witness, attesting to the authenticity of Varner’s signature.
(F) He lied by omission to the Board when he told it that he did not notarize the Varner settlement document.
(G) He endorsed Varner’s name to the settlement check without Varner’s knowledge and without advising the bank that he was doing so.
(H) He retained all of the proceeds of the settlement without Varner’s knowledge or agreement.
(I) He failed to respond to a notice from the Committee on Arbitration of the Los Angeles County Bar Association that Varner was disputing his fee and that there would be an arbitration of the dispute. He also failed to appear at the hearing.
(J) He failed to advise the Board of the fee dispute or the award in favor of Varner and against him in the amount of $10,000.
(K) He wrote a letter to Varner after entry of the award against him wherein he misrepresented the law and threatened to sue her if she did not agree to settle with him for $500.
(L) He destroyed all of his files for all of the cases he handled in California.
(M) A judgment was entered in California against him in the amount of $34,000 for malicious prosecution.
(N) He lied by omission to the Board when in his application for admission he stated that the judgment for malicious prosecution was reversed, but did not state that it was reversed by stipulation of the parties rather than on the merits.
(O) He failed to inform the Board about a lawsuit to which he was a party and which settled in applicant’s favor for the amount of approximately $41,000.00.
(P) On May 16, 1997, he issued subpoenas on which he holds himself out to be an attorney practicing in Oregon.
(Q) Applicant failed to inform the Board about a lawsuit in which applicant was a plaintiff in an attorney fee dispute.
(R) Applicant failed to inform the Board that a motion for sanctions was made against him for appearing at a deposition while carrying a concealed weapon and that a sanction was assessed against him in the amount of $750.”

The record contains overwhelming evidence that applicant does not possess that requisite good moral character and fitness to be a practicing attorney in Oregon. Applicant’s brief to this court does little to resolve the doubts raised by the Board about his character. We conclude that applicant has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a person of good moral character and fit to practice law in Oregon.

Bernath assault police report:

Bernath v. Yelp:

DANIEL A. BERNATH, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
TABITHA J OF EUGENE OREGON, and
YELP, INC.,

Defendants Yelp Inc.’s Special Motion to Strike (ORS 31.150) came before this Court for regularly scheduled hearing on August 14,20 13. Based on the pleadings. declarations and oral argument in this matter, the Court hereby finds

1. The statements at issue in this matter regarding the Yelp review posted by “Tabitha 1” were made in a public forum, in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right to free speech, concerning an issue of public interest.

2. Plaintiff cannot establish a probability that he will prevail on his claims against Yelp Inc.

3. Yelp Inc. is an interactive computer service as defined by the Communications
Decency Act (48 U,S.C. § 230). Yelp did not create or contribute to the review at issue in this case, which was created by “Tabitha J”, another information content provider. Defendant’s claims seek to treat Yelp as the publisher of Tabitha J,’s content, and therefore are precluded by the Communications Decency Act. Yelp Inc.’s Special Motion to Strike is therefore GRANTED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all claims at issue in this case relating to the Yelp review posted by defendant “Tabitha J”, including all claims set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint and First Amended Complaint, and all current claims against Yelp Inc., are dismissed.

Judge in Bernath v. Yelp:

THE COURT: Okay. Because I must admit, I can’t always tell what it is Mr. Bernath is attempting to file, what he has actually filed as compared to just emailing. Because he emailed me stuff sometimes, and I don’t think he shows copies to you. I just delete them. I don’t read them. I don’t know what they say.

Bernath v. Yelp, attorneys fees granted to Yelp:

Notice is hereby given that Yelp, Inc. claims a lien on the judgment proceeds, if any, to be paid in favor of Daniel A. Bernath in this matter. The lien is the unpaid balance of a judgment entered in favor of Yelp, Inc. in Bernath v Yelp, Inc., Multnomah County Circuit Court Case no. 1305-06167 in the amount of $21,407.50 plus post-judgment interest from December 26, 2014. A certified copy of that judgment is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. The judgment includes the addresses of the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor. The judgment debt remains fully unpaid.

Chief Petty Offender is perhaps what he means by CPO:

Martha Wong Bernath discussing her husband:

(14 ORS § 646.605 9(d). et seq.,Taking Advantage of a Disabled US Veteran and the spouse of a disabled veteran) Daniel A. Bernath then was declared 100% disabled by the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration for approximately three years He has constant pain of 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, has peripheral neuropathy so that he cannot evacuate wastes without the use of a medical devise, and suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, depression, hyper vigilance caused from his honorable service to the US Navy in the Vietnam and the Cold Wars…..

Because of his high level of constant pain and pain medication to alleviate some of the pain, at times people think that Mr. Bernath is angry or short tempered. He is merely trying to function while in pain and some people may misinterpret his sometimes direct statements.

Mr. Bernath, who estimates that he does not have much time to live with his kidney disease, 100% mental and physical impairments, while struggling with his wartime caused pain, directly asked Rosenblatt:

“‘You’re not going to cheat this woman?
She needs the money for her retirement and I don’t know how much longer I’ve got to live.

Bernath was nearly shouting and pointing his finger at Rosenblatt; ”Don’t you cheat this woman!”

Noises from the bushes:

A Grand Conspiracy:

Dear Commanding Officer:
I am a veteran of the United States Navy. Member or members of your command have been posting defamatory, death threats and terrorist comments about me on a website entitled www.valorguardians.com Mark Seavey, a former Army Sgt. is the owner of this harmful site and all comments posted there are solicited by him to members of the US Military to be as harmful as possible to civilians that they target. I have prepared a petition for restraining Order against his death threats to me. Mark Seavey is currently a full time employee of the American Legion in Indianapolis.
I have already obtained a retraining order against another owner of this website, another Army veteran, Jonn Lilyea. They are in constant contact with active duty military service members to threaten me and have the US Military spy on me.
You have the facilities to track down who is posting harmful comments about civilian using US military facilities in violation of the UCMJ and the US Code and I herein provide you the IP address and the gateway address of your computer system on your base with the large number of spy missions upon myself coming from your command or others.
Under the Posse Comitatus Law is the (18 U.S.C. § 1385 et seq.), the United States military shall not spy on civilians and may not act in any civil capacity within the United States. Members of your command are violating this ancient prohibition and it reflects badly on your service branch and the United States.
Daniel A. Bernath
Chief Petty Officer NANP (Hon.)
USN 1966-1970
Homeland Security 2002-2004

Roger Waters, musical interlude:

Actual standard:

The statements by Defendant Warrington that Plaintiff Giduck was a liar, fraud, scammer and imposter because he misrepresented his credentials are not actionable. Opining that someone is a liar, a fraud or was untruthful about his or her background, is, perhaps unfortunately, a common implement in American discourse. Such epithets are obviously statements of opinion and are protected under the rules enunciated in Milkovich and Burns….

Defendant Niblett’s statement that Plaintiff Giduck is a “piece of shit” or, a “fool,” a “fraud,” a “poser civilian,” and a “clown” are patently Niblett’s opinion and are not actionable. If every statement along these lines formed the basis for a libel or slander case, the courts of this country would be entirely devoted to the litigation of defamation claims. These are statements of opinion and are protected under the rules enunciated in Milkovich and Burns…

The statements attributed to these Defendants regarding Giduck were blunt, uncomplimentary, and probably “rhetorical hyperbole.” But they were also privileged statements of opinion protected by the First Amendment as applied in a litany of Supreme Court and Colorado appellate cases.

Category: Politics