I also couldn’t find a single reference to him by running a search by attorney name of California appellate case law going all the way back to 1934. Anyway, my readers should draw their own conclusions about his relative presence (or lack of presence) on the internet.
Here’s something else to draw conclusions about. Ponder the implications of this State Bar Rule of Professional Conduct:
Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 5-100 Threatening Criminal, Administrative, or Disciplinary Charges
(A) A member shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute.
(B) As used in paragraph (A) of this rule, the term “administrative charges” means the filing or lodging of a complaint with a federal, state, or local governmental entity which may order or recommend the loss or suspension of a license, or may impose or recommend the imposition of a fine, pecuniary sanction, or other sanction of a quasi-criminal nature but does not include filing charges with an administrative entity required by law as a condition precedent to maintaining a civil action.
(C) As used in paragraph (A) of this rule, the term “civil dispute” means a controversy or potential controversy over the rights and duties of two or more parties under civil law, whether or not an action has been commenced, and includes an administrative proceeding of a quasi-civil nature pending before a federal, state, or local governmental entity.
Rule 5-100 is not intended to apply to a member’s threatening to initiate contempt proceedings against a party for a failure to comply with a court order.
Paragraph (B) is intended to exempt the threat of filing an administrative charge which is a prerequisite to filing a civil complaint on the same transaction or occurrence.
For purposes of paragraph (C), the definition of “civil dispute” makes clear that the rule is applicable prior to the formal filing of a civil action.
Now, if you know how to look up old case law, check out the California Supreme Court decision in:
People v. Beggs (1918) 178 Cal. 79, 83-84 [172 P. 152] and
Merchants’ Collection Agency v. Roantree (1918) 37 Cal.App. 88.
Finally, listen to this telephone call that Xavier R. Baeza, Esquire, made to Angel & Argentina Luevano:
By the way, Baeza seems to think that Angel Luevano called him pendejo. This is news to Angel. It’s not clear from the call who supposedly told him that this was the case.
One of his clients in the case of Luevano et al vs Diaz etc & et al, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 441643, Benigno “Benny” Diaz, has boasted in an email to LULAC members that the defendants (which includes National LULAC, a corporation which has had its corporate rights suspended and forfeited since 1972 by order of the California Franchise Tax Board) are well represented. Of course this is a civil case, not a criminal defense matter, so I’m kind of wondering why the only practice area I found listed for Attorney Baeza on the internet was criminal law. Maybe I just didn’t search hard enough or long enough.
But since the Honorable Judge Susan Bryant Deason of Los Angeles Superior Court Dept 52 had to admonish Mr. Baeza more than once in court today that she should be addressed as “your honor” or “judge” as opposed to “ma’am,” I figure that Mr. Baeza at least had not had the time in his 24 years of legal practice to get the message or at least the spirit of “Achieving Equal Justice for Women and Men in the California Courts” the recommendations of which were adopted by the California Judicial Council in 1990. Mr. Baeza does fit in fairly well with his clients, some of whom have a known penchant for being MCPs (male chauvinist pigs). As an example, one of the people elected to the purported state board of LULAC along with Benny’s re-election as purported state chair, had a mass exodus from his own council of women who simply couldn’t stand the sexist and arrogant way he ran the council, several years ago.
What’s the saying, “birds of a feather flock together?”
Then of course there’s the fact that Benny Diaz, Ricardo Mendoza, and Texas Attorney Luis Roberto Vera, Jr., all sued personally in the Luevano case, have all had their defaults taken for non-response after they were lawfully served with the Summons and Complaint. Benny and Ricardo were served in the presence of an attorney (not Baeza). Baeza served the Luevanos recently with a purported Motion for Relief from default for those three defendants under Section 473(b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure. There were some problems with the motion. First of all, it wasn’t signed. Second, the proof of service wasn’t filled out. Third, it wasn’t scheduled for a hearing date as required by court rules prior to service. Finally, it was filed more than six months after the defaults were entered against those three defendants. Read Section 473(b) CCP for yourself at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov (Click California Law, check off Code of Civil Procedure, and then scroll down to click the appropriate sections)
Well, just another day and another page in the Detective’s Diary….