At Digital Realty, Josh Mills and Justin Chang Prove it’s Not Too Late…. to Hate

Mills and Chang Incite Suspicion and Potential Violence Against the LGBT Community 

 

Marilyn Campos –  Legal Bureau Blog Reporter  Part 2 in a series

Joshua Mills has engaged in some rather significant and malicious misconduct.  He’s not alone.  Joining him was Digital employee Justin Chang, Seyfarth Shaw lawyer Brian T. Ashe and former Seyfarth Shaw lawyer, Shireen Wetmore.  Each has been proven to have made false statements under penalty of perjury.  They conspired to create a set of false events in which Mr. Somers was accused of criminal acts he never engaged in.   The crimes were alleged to have taken place over the course of several days in Washington DC, at the time of the Supreme Court oral arguments.

Each wrote a Declaration to support a motion for a protective order based on the false set of events.  They may have figured if four people stood together and lied, it might seem plausible.

If nothing else, publishing their lies in the public domain would have the effect of damaging Somers for the rest of his life.

Mr. Somers read the expensive motion which cost Digital Realty shareholders about $60,000.  In about 15 seconds, he was able to collect sufficient evidence to disapprove Digital’s accusations. Just a few taps on his iPhone c and the proof was there on Google.

Here’s what happened:

 


Josh Mills, General Counsel for Digital Realty, is supposed the “moral compass” for the real estate investment trust.  Judging from what has been written by Mr. Mills, he’s the not going to win any awards for ethical behavior any time soon.  Mills, earns in the neighborhood of $10M a year so why would he risk his reputation and his career telling his big fat lies?

It isn’t enough that Mills failed to intervene/investigate Ellen Jacobs and Kris Kumar’s retaliation resulting in the termination of Somers’ employment.

It isn’t enough that Mills has refused to reimburse Somers more than $300K in expenses now for four years;

It isn’t enough that Mills didn’t foster a win-win settlement opportunity in October 2014.

It isn’t enough that Mr. Mills went to the Supreme Court to obtain the right to retaliate against employees, a right that violates Digital’s own code of conduct.

Unsatisfied, Joshua A. Mills decides to try perjury:

“Mr. Somers was watching my wife and minor children at the Supreme Court, somehow stalked the travel of the Digital people and followed us to our hotel in Washington D.C. I became concerned for my safety and the safety and well-being of my family and the Digital executives and Board members as a result of this knowledge.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 24th day of January, 2018 in San Francisco, California.

 

Let’s dump out Mr. Mills Bag of Crazy on the table:

  1. Watching his wife and kids?  Mr. Somers was sitting with his partner in the Supreme Court.  The place was packed.  Children are not allowed in the Supreme  Court so that settles the first lie.  There were probably many “wives” in the crowd but none were marked as “Wife of Mr. Josh Mills.”  Mr. Somers was at his Supreme Court oral argument and wasn’t there to meet chicks.  Mills is clearly attempting to provoke and demonize Mr. Somers as a gay man.  It is not well-taken.  This is the domain for and  Lambda Legal and the HRC to consider.   The reference to “wife and kids” is a less than subtle way that homophobes drum up their supporters to incite suspicion and violence against the LGBT  community.  Mills appears to be in that camp and leading the charge.
  2. Somehow stalked the travel – Mr Mills wanted to further damage Mr.Somers with this bizarre statement.  Stalking is a criminal offense.  Falsely accusing someone of a crime under oath is a crime. Mr. Somers proves this is a lie, see below. Once again, it is a less than subtle way that homophobes drum up their supporters to incite suspicion and violence against the LGBT  community.
  3. And followed us to our hotel – Mills swears under perjury that Somers followed him to his hotel.  Mr Somers did nothing of the sort. This was disproven using simple technology.:  Google Location Services and eyewitness accounts.  Shameful, Mr. Mills. Once again, it is a less than subtle way that homophobes drum up their supporters to incite suspicion and violence against the LGBT  community.
  4. Became concerned – Mr. Mills wants us to believe he became concerned over his own fabrication that he was being followed by an ex-employee stalker.  Considering none of it is true what does it tell you about Mr. Mills? Once again, it is a less than subtle way that homophobes drum up their supporters to incite suspicion and violence against the LGBT  community.

 

How did Somers prove that everything Mr. Mills and his cronies had written is false?

GOOGLE LOCATION SERVICES PROVIDED PROOF OF MR. SOMERS WHEREABOUTS FOR EVERY MOMENT HE WAS IN WASHINGTON DC.  What Google was able to show is that Somers wasn’t anywhere near the “Digital people” except for the pre-reserved lunch and in the Supreme Court.   It is now a fact that Mills and friends conspired to damage Somers.   Digital dropped the motion as fast as they could after being exposed.

Accusing someone of a crime that could result in criminal charges?  Both Mills and Chang acted contrary to Digital’s Code of Business Ethics and Conduct. This is a serious matter that deserves the Board of Director’s attention.

Somer’s filed a response to the ridiculous accusations.  Digital went silent on it as they always do when they’re caught.  What did the judge do?  Absolutely nothing because Seyfarth is managing the docket for the Judge.

Somers came up with a new phrase, which aptly applies to Mr. Mills and his posse’s attempt to damage him.  What Mills did is what we will refer to in the future as the first-ever “White Collar Hate Crime.”

Born, of all places, in San Francisco.


 

ABA STANDARDS

STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS

 

  1. 6.1  FALSE STATEMENTS, FRAUD, AND MISREPRESENTATION

Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation to a court:

  1. 6.11  Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a false document, or improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s