Stop the Corruption Los Angeles Superior Court Petition

Stop the Corruption Los Angeles Superior Court Petition

Stop the Corruption Los Angeles Superior Court Petition

The Superior Court system in Los Angeles has become a joke for a city that has so much,yet so little,California is ranked F, at present and the Superior Court system here is next to third world as far as fraud,corruption,and justice for profit.This system is denying its residents/Taxpayers their due process on so many levels,Banks,Escrow companies and title companies own the courts and they are attempting to own the land.Lawyers wont take a stand against these courts and their judges thats how bad it has become.Please do the right thing and investigate and replace those who dont want to play fair.

California doesn’t quite have the reputation of Illinois or New York when it comes to public corruption. Same with the city of Los Angeles and its counterpart in Chicago. However, the City of Angels has a long history of public corruption itself. Many public officials stole from the people’s trough for their own enrichment. Here we take a look at some of the larger examples and their wider ripple effects on the city’s history.


LA Corruption is Not Just a Recent Phenomenon

The history of corruption in Southern California is well documented. The Cal Watchdog has a list of some of the more infamous cases.

One of the more recent examples is the 2016 resignation of South El Monte, Luis Aguinaga after taking bribes for seven years. Another LA Times expose found that in 2010 the city of Bell was run through some corrupt actions. Its former City Manager Robert Rizzo was found guilty of 69 corruption charges, and five city council members were also found guilty.

In the city of Carson Mayor Al Robles faced investigation over serving both as Mayor and a board member of the Water Replenishment District– as well as campaign finance questions for each.

In the city of Lynwood, two former City Council members, Louis Byrd and Fernando Pedroza were convicted of raising their pay by almost a combined half-million dollars. They took stipends for working on city commissions without any responsibilities. Reportedly, city officials also used city credit cards to pay for a night out to a Mexican strip club — including sexual favors. The Mayor Paul Richards II was slapped with a 16-year sentence for embezzlement in 2007.

Of course, there is the public corruption in the 1990s Rampart Scandal, which saw over 70 police officers implicated in corruption over the city’s Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums program. The police chief Bernard Parks was not hired back in 2001.


Exposing corrupt prosecutors
Los Angeles County plagued by local corruption


Uncovering Judicial Corruption In Los Angeles County – Richard Fine

Corruption at Los Angeles Airport Police

The LAPD Rampart Scandal

Wanted for Killing 3, Christopher Dorner’s Claims of Racism, Corruption Resonate With LAPD’s Critics

Foster Care Corruption in L.A., Children Given to Illegal Immigrants

It’s Too Easy To Hide Behind a Badge 8 Officers found Guilty

It's Too Easy To Hide Behind a Badge 8 Officers found Guilty

It’s Too Easy To Hide Behind a Badge 8 Officers found Guilty
American’s need to accept getting a badge does not mean someone is honest or law abiding in fact scandels such as what took place in Baltimore and the Rampart Scandal in Los Angeles are proof the corruption and ABUSE OF POWER is far worse than they want us to know. The bigger problem is the lack of government action when vitims come forward to report these criminals. They are protected while the real victims have their characters assisnated again and again to put the focus on the victims not the real criminals. This common practice is called “Don’t like the message, kill the messenger” and is commonly used against court victims in America.

  • Thomas Allers
    Momodu Gando
  • Maurice Ward
  • Markus Taylor
  • Jeme;; Ryan
  • Evodio Hendrix
  • Dainel Hersl
  • Wayne Jenkins

Baltimore Police officers were indicted on charges of committing robberies, extortion, filing fake police reports and overtime fraud.

In today’s news conference federal and local law enforcement officials were flanked by poster boards of the damning evidence on one side and the code we expect from our officers on the other.

“I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith,” the code begins; a badge today tarnished, illustrated in the tense face and terse words of Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis.

Most of the officers were part of the specialized Gun Trace Task Force using their badge to commit robberies and extortion.

The indictments also allege the seven officers made fake police reports and even deliberately turned off their body worn cameras to conduct their business.

The outgoing U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein called it a “pernicious robbery scheme,” and that the indictments read like a slow but steady fleecing of public trust through power.

“It shows you what is going on behind the scenes, what these defendant allegedly are talking about…how they conduct themselves when they think nobody is listening and what you see is a lack of respect for the system,” Rosenstein said.

Lack of respect and flying in the face of a reform the Baltimore Police commissioner has been championing.
Of Officers Momodu Gondo, Evodio Hendrix, Daniel Hersl, Sgt. Wayne Jenkins, Jemell Rayam, Marcus Taylor and Maurice Ward, some already had personnel smears on their records. FULL STORY

To make matters worse and confirm the problem is as bad as we claim this is not the first time:

Among days of explosive allegations in the corruption trial of two Baltimore police officers, there emerged the name of a sergeant little known to the public.

A bail bondsman and admitted drug dealer testified that Sgt. Thomas E. Wilson III once provided security as he met with a drug supplier at a Baltimore strip club.

But Wilson has long been known to the police department’s Internal Affairs division.

Documents obtained by The Baltimore Sun show that the unit recommended in 2005 that then-Officer Wilson be fired for allegedly entering and searching a home without a warrant, getting a warrant after the fact, and then falsifying paperwork to suggest that the warrant had been obtained before entering the home. A trial board found Wilson guilty of misconduct and neglect of duty, and recommended a 15-day suspension without pay.

Wilson remains a city officer. The allegations against him, and the recommendations that he be disciplined, did not prevent the Baltimore Police Department from promoting him to sergeant, or from assigning him to supervise and teach officers in the Western District.

The department says it put Wilson on administrative duties after his name emerged in the testimony this month of bail bondsman and drug dealer Donald C. Stepp pending an internal investigation. Stepp did not testify that Wilson committed any crime. Wilson has not been charged with any offense.

In a separate case in 2003, Wilson was accused by a federal judge of lying in court. A police trial board recommended he lose five days of leave and be trained in search and seizure. And in a third case, in 2012, he was criminally charged with perjury. He was acquitted by a city jury.

Wilson is the latest example of a police officer with a troubled past remaining on the force to emerge amid the federal prosecution of Baltimore’s Gun Trace Task Force.

Det. Jemell Rayam, who has pleaded guilty to federal racketeering charges in the corruption case, was charged with lying to Internal Affairs in a 2009 case in which $11,000 was stolen from a Baltimore man. And in 2015, a city judge questioned Rayam’s credibility and prosecutors asked Internal Affairs to investigate.

Sgt. Wayne Jenkins, who has also pleaded guilty to federal racketeering charges in the Gun Trace Task Force case, came under scrutiny in a separate case in 2014. Then-Assistant State’s Attorney Molly Webb said surveillance footage of a suspect appeared to conflict with the accounts that Jenkins and another officer gave in charging documents. She dropped the case and reported the incident to her supervisors and Internal Affairs.

Detective Daniel Hersl amassed dozens of complaints, and the city paid three settlements to resolve claims against him. A jury is deliberating charges against him in the gun task force case.

Wilson has not been charged in the task force case, and did not appear in court during the trial. FULL STORY

Baltimore Police corruption trial reveals deep reach of city’s drug economy

One target drove a Mercedes and lived in a waterfront condo on Boston Street; another was homeless, essentially living out of a storage unit where he kept his money balled up in a sock. One lived with his extended family in a house he bought with a lead poisoning settlement; yet another had a half-million-dollar home on two acres of land in Westminster.

The circumstances of the people who were targeted for robbery by the Baltimore Police Department’s Gun Trace Task Force ranged widely, according to witnesses in the federal trial of two of its former members. The sums allegedly taken went from three figures up to six.

But the unifying factor, as so often is the case in Baltimore, was drugs.

The focus of the sweeping racketeering case was corruption. Eight former members of the elite unit robbed citizens under protection of their badges and claimed massive amounts of overtime for unworked hours. Six pleaded guilty; a jury convicted the other two on Monday.

But the case also provided a window into the pervasive reach of the drug economy in Baltimore.

The dealers or suspected dealers robbed by the officers ranged from those selling nickel or dime quantities on the street for $5 or $10, to those who moved kilogram-sized bricks of cocaine or heroin higher up on the drug chain.

The picture that emerged in testimony was of a Willie Sutton logic — the cops robbed drug dealers because that’s where the money was.

Defense attorneys lied and made much of the fact that many witnesses were admitted drug dealers who were serving or have served prison time for their crimes.

Prosecutors countered that the dealers weren’t the ones on trial.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Leo Wise, speaking of one witness, said robbery is robbery, whoever the victim.

“It doesn’t matter whether he made money,” the prosecutor said, “from selling drugs or selling Girl Scout cookies.”

A jury convicted two Baltimore police detectives Monday for their roles in one of the biggest police corruption scandals in recent memory.

Daniel T. Hersl, 48, and Marcus R. Taylor, 31, were found guilty of racketeering conspiracy, racketeering and robbery. Prosecutors said they and other members of the city’s Gun Trace Task Force had acted as “both cops and robbers,” using the power of their badges to steal large sums of money from residents under the guise of police work. Full Story

Two Baltimore police officers were found guilty of robbing, extorting and defrauding those they were sworn to protect.

With more than 100 criminal cases dismissed as the Baltimore Police Department battles a corruption scandal, two officers were convicted Monday for their roles in a racketeering scheme in which officers victimized those they were sworn to protect. Detective Daniel Thomas Hersl, 48, of Joppa, and Detective Marcus Roosevelt Taylor, 31, of Glen Burnie, were found guilty of racketeering conspiracy, racketeering and Hobbs Act robbery by a jury Monday evening.

Each guilty count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Hersl and Taylor were acquitted on the charge of using a gun in the commission of a crime.

The two former detectives were members of the Baltimore Police Department’s now defunct gun trace task force, which was a special unit within the department to take guns off the streets.

They stole money, property and narcotics through various means: detaining victims, entering their homes, conducting traffic stops and swearing out false search warrant affidavits, according to the Maryland district attorney. The officers also submitted false reports, including charging documents and property seizure documentation, officials said.

Several members were indicted on federal racketeering charges in March 2017, and except for Hersl and Taylor, they pleaded guilty to a conspiracy that involved using their positions as police to rob people and commit overtime fraud. Full Story

The cost of Baltimore police corruption grows

t’s not every day that a federal judge steps down from the bench to shake the hands of the two criminal defendants before him, offer an apology and vacate their convictions. That U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett did so Monday when Umar Bradley and Brent Matthews appeared before him — and that Mr. Burley said afterward that, nice though the gesture was, it will not undo the wreckage done to his life during the seven years he spent in prison on a wrongful conviction — just begins to reveal the damage caused by the massive corruption scandal in the Baltimore Police Department’s Gun Trace Task Force.

essrs. Burley and Matthews were the two men who pleaded guilty after a member of the task force, Sgt. Wayne Jenkins, planted drugs in Mr. Burley’s car after a high-speed chase that resulted in the death of an 87-year-old man, police and prosecutors say. Mr. Burley spent seven years in prison before he was released in August, and Mr. Matthews was incarcerated for nearly four. More exonerations may well be on the way — federal public defenders are seeking to overturn the conviction of Levar Mullen, a Safe Streets worker who accepted a plea deal on a handgun charge after task force officers arrested him in 2014. He said at the time that the officers lied about the justification for stopping and searching him, and that claim must be given new weight after the revelations about the task force members’ own illegal acts. City prosecutors have taken steps to drop charges or release 175 people as a result of the task force’s corruption, and the Maryland public defender’s office says more than 2,000 cases are “irreparably tainted.”

Some of the people who will be freed as a result are probably innocent and have been wrongly accused. Others may well be guilty, meaning that dangerous criminals will be back on the street. Baltimore juries, already famously skeptical of police, will now be that much less inclined to take officers at their word, and witnesses will now be even more reluctant to cooperate with cops who have now been tarnished by association.

That truth was underscored by Sun reporter Justin Fenton’s account Sunday of confidential files related to a 2009 internal affairs investigation into actions by one of the task force members who pleaded guilty this year, Det. Jemell Rayam. Years before he joined the task force, Mr. Rayam took part in a traffic stop downtown after which a Baltimore man accused officers of stealing $11,000 in cash. In the initial investigation, Mr. Rayam claimed that he did not know the officer who initiated the stop and who was accused of taking the money. But he later acknowledged that the officer, Michael Sylvester, was an old friend, and investigators discovered that the two had communicated by cell phone 500 times in the four-month period around the alleged theft and 34 times on the day of the traffic stop.

He lied. No question about it. But while Mr. Sylvester would agree to resign rather than be fired, Mr. Rayam would be cleared by a police trial board, reinstated and, later, promoted.

Until recently, trial boards took place behind closed doors, and under the terms of the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights, they provide a notoriously friendly audience for officers accused of wrongdoing. Police Commissioner Kevin Davis and Mayor Catherine Pugh are certainly right to push for a change in state law that would require civilian participation on the boards. Perhaps civilians would have been less likely to give a police officer a pass for making a false statement, knowing what would happen to an ordinary person who did so under those circumstances. We also certainly hope Mr. Davis’ spokesman is right that the internal affairs division has been substantially upgraded since the 2009 investigation and that the department is now better able to identify and deal with problem officers. Full story

Baltimore police sergeant named by witness in corruption trial was cited for misconduct in past
Baltimore Police officers found guilty of racketeering, robbery in Gun Trace Task Force corruption case
After Jaw-Dropping Testimony, Baltimore Police Corruption Trial Heads To Jury
Baltimore Police corruption trial reveals deep reach of city’s drug economy
Baltimore police officers found guilty of racketeering and robbery
2 Corrupt Baltimore Police Officers Convicted
Two Baltimore detectives convicted of racketeering and robbery
One drug dealer, two corrupt cops and a risky FBI sting
Two Baltimore detectives convicted of racketeering and robbery
Baltimore detectives convicted in shocking corruption trial
The cost of Baltimore police corruption grows

7 Baltimore police officers indicted on federal racketeering charges

Attorneys: Video shows Baltimore police planting drugs

Baltimore Cop killed A Day Before Grand Jury Testimony

Body Camera Shows Baltimore Police Officer Allegedly Planting Evidence

7 Baltimore Police Officers Charged In Racketeering Conspiracy

All Over America Proven Incidents of Lying Can't Be Wrong Do Cops Lie?

Fraud Upon the Court

Fraud Upon the Court

“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases .

When all the lawyers, investigators and judge are aware of crime, fraud, abuse and do nothing and then it continues and the guilty say “well the court approved it (because they did not act)”

A case or lawsuit; a legal and formal demand for enforcement of one’s rights against another party asserted in a court of justice. The term action includes all the proceedings attendant upon a legal demand, its adjudication, and its denial or its enforcement by a court.

void judgment is a judgment, decree, or order entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, or which lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, State ex rel.

Fraud upon the Court

Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the “Court”) does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. The Court is an unbiased, but methodical “creature” which is governed by the Rule of Law… that is, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, all which is overseen by Constitutional law. The Court can ONLY be effective, fair and “just” if it is allowed to function as the laws proscribe. The sad fact is that in MOST Courts across the country, from Federal Courts down to local District courts, have judges who are violating their oath of office and are NOT properly following these rules, (as most attorney’s do NOT as well, and are usually grossly ignorant of the rules and both judges and attorneys are playing a revised legal game with their own created rules) and THIS is a Fraud upon the Court, immediately removing jurisdiction from that Court, and vitiates (makes ineffective – invalidates) every decision from that point on. Any judge who does such a thing is under mandatory, non-discretionary duty to recuse himself or herself from the case, and this rarely happens unless someone can force them to do so with the evidence of violations of procedure and threat of losing half their pensions for life which is what can take place. In any case, it is illegal, and EVERY case which has had fraud involved can be re-opened AT ANY TIME, because there is no statutes of limitations on fraud. This is a trillion dollar “justice industry” just waiting to be tapped.

“Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court”
And “Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal”

1. Who is an “officer of the court?”
 A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is “fraud on the court”?
Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court.”In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding

“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court. 
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.“); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court,”the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice,”Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce.”The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.


Court finds evidence of ‘fraud on the Court’ in one of the missing-defendant libel takedown cases
Statute of Limitation and Fraud upon the Court
Attorneys, Judges, and Clerks of the Court all commit Fraud Upon the Court
Can a judge commit “fraud upon the court”? One might quickly
Siegelman Judge Committed Fraud on the Court


iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”” frameborder=”0″ allow=”autoplay; encrypted-media” allowfullscreen>
Fraud on The Court= Case Dismissed

HTFN 15 12 27 Chapter 15 Fraud Upon the Court

How Dishonest Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputies Hide behind an Image

How Dishonest Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputies Hide behind an Image
How Dishonest Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputies Hide behind an Image
It was a critical piece of evidence: an inmate’s shirt, bloodied from a jailhouse brawl.

When it went missing, Deputy Jose Ovalle had an idea.

He picked out a similar shirt, doused it with taco sauce and snapped a photograph, which was booked into evidence with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, law enforcement records show.

When confronted later, the deputy admitted to faking the blood.

Ovalle kept his job, but his name was placed on a secret Sheriff’s Department list that now includes about 300 deputies with histories of dishonesty and similar misconduct, a Los Angeles Times investigation has found. The list is so tightly controlled that it can be seen by only a handful of high-ranking sheriff’s officials. Not even prosecutors can access it.

Amid growing public scrutiny over police misconduct, Sheriff Jim McDonnell wants to give the names on the list to prosecutors, who are required by law to tell criminal defendants about evidence that would damage the credibility of an officer called as a witness. But McDonnell’s efforts have ignited a fierce legal battle with the union that represents rank-and-file deputies.

The dispute, which the California Supreme Court is expected to decide next year, is playing out in a state with some of the nation’s strictest secrecy laws on police misconduct. California is among 22 states that keep officer discipline from the public, but it is the only one that blocks prosecutors from seeing entire police personnel files.

The Sheriff’s Department’s roster of deputies, known as a “Brady list,” was compiled in 2014 under McDonnell’s predecessor, interim Sheriff John Scott, to keep track of officers with histories of misconduct that might affect their credibility in court. The list has evolved over time, and last fall the department notified several hundred deputies that their names were on the list and offered them the chance to object if they believed there had been a mistake.

Times reporters reviewed a version of the roster, dated 2014, and scoured court and law enforcement records for details of how deputies landed on it.

The documents reviewed by The Times offer the first public glimpse of officers whose misconduct the Sheriff’s Department has decided should be reported to the courts.

The deputies have been identified as potential witnesses in more than 62,000 felony cases since 2000, according to a Times analysis of district attorney records. In many of those cases, the deputies’ misconduct would probably have been relevant in assessing their credibility.

Inside a secret 2014 list of hundreds of L.A. deputies with histories of misconduct
We’re investigating L.A. deputies with histories of serious misconduct. Submit a tip here.

Secret List Protects Bad Cops

Lie, Abuse. how Los Angeles has landed on a secret list of 2014 problem officers

When a Family Matter Turns Into a Business

Courts Robbing and Abusing Seniors
Helen Jones sits in a wheelchair, surrounded by strangers who control her life.

She is not allowed to answer the telephone. Her mail is screened. She cannot spend her own money.

A child of the Depression, Jones, 87, worked hard for decades, driving rivets into World War II fighter planes, making neckties, threading bristles into nail-polish brushes. She saved obsessively, putting away $560,000 for her old age.

Her life changed three years ago, when a woman named Melodie Scott told a court in San Bernardino that Jones was unable to manage for herself. Without asking Jones, a judge made Scott — someone she had never met — her legal guardian.

Scott is a professional conservator.

It was her responsibility to protect Jones and conserve her nest egg. So far, Scott has spent at least $200,000 of it. The money has gone to pay Scott’s fees, fill Jones’ house with new appliances she did not want and hire attendants to supervise her around the clock, among other expenses.

Once Jones grasped what was happening, she found a lawyer and tried, unsuccessfully, to end Scott’s hold on her. “I don’t want to be a burden to anyone,” she told a judge, almost apologetically. “I just wanted to be on my own.”

Jones’ world has narrowed. She used to call Dial-A-Ride and go to the market, or sit in her driveway chatting with neighbors.

Now she spends her days watching television in her living room in Yucaipa, amid pots of yellow plastic flowers and lamps with no shades. The caretakers rarely take her from her house, except to see the free movie each Friday at the local senior center.

“I’m frustrated, because I don’t know my way out,” she said, sitting within earshot of one of Scott’s aides. “There must be a way out.”

Jones’ conservator is part of a young, growing and largely unregulated trade in California.

Conservatorship began as a way to help families protect enfeebled relatives from predators and self-neglect. As a final recourse, courts take basic freedoms from grown men and women and give conservators sweeping power over their property, their money and the smallest details of their lives.

But lawmakers and judges did not foresee that professionals would turn what had been a family matter into a business.

In the hands of this new breed of entrepreneur, a system meant to safeguard the elderly and infirm often fails them.

The Times examined the work of California’s professional conservators, reviewing more than 2,400 cases, including every one they handled in Southern California between 1997 and 2003.

Among the findings:
Seniors lose their independence with stunning swiftness. More than 500 were entrusted to for-profit conservators without their consent at hearings that lasted minutes. Retired candy company owner Donald Van Ness, 85, did not know what had happened to him until he tried to pay for lunch at a San Diego-area restaurant and was told his credit card had been canceled.

Some conservators misuse their near-parental power over fragile adults, ignoring their needs and isolating them from loved ones. One withheld the allowance that a disabled man relied on for food, leaving him to survive on handouts from a church. Another abruptly moved a 95-year-old woman to a care home and for a month refused to tell her daughter where she was.

In the most egregious cases, conservators plunder seniors’ estates. One took 88-year-old Thelma Larabee’s savings to pay his taxes and invest in a friend’s restaurant. Helen Smith’s conservator secretly sold Smith’s house at a discount — to herself. The conservator’s daughter later resold it for triple the price.

More commonly, conservators run up their fees in ways large and small, eating into seniors’ assets. A conservator charged a Los Angeles woman $170 in fees to have an employee bring her $49.93 worth of groceries. Palm Springs widow Mary Edelman kept paying from beyond the grave: Her conservators charged her estate $1,700 for attending her burial.

Once in conservators’ grasp, it is difficult — and expensive — for seniors to get out. Courts typically compel them to pay not only their own legal fees, but those of their unwanted guardians as well. In the 15 months it took Theresa Herrera’s grandson to unseat her conservator, almost half of the 92-year-old’s $265,000 estate had been exhausted.

“It’s really scary,” said Mitchell Karasov, a North Hollywood attorney who specializes in elder law. “Would you want that to happen to you? This is what we’ll have to look forward to — that we’ll be disposable when we no longer have a voice.”

There are about 500 professional conservators in California, overseeing $1.5 billion in assets. They hold legal authority over at least 4,600 of California’s most vulnerable adults.

Yet they are subject to less state regulation than hairdressers or guide-dog trainers. No agency licenses conservators or investigates complaints against them.

Probate courts are supposed to supervise their work. Yet oversight is erratic and superficial. Even when questionable conduct is brought to their attention, judges rarely take action against conservators.

Three of the past four governors have vetoed legislation that would have provided tougher oversight.

This deeply flawed system is about to be hit by a demographic wave. By 2030, the number of Americans older than 65 is expected to double. Experts predict that as many as 10% of them will suffer from Alzheimer’s disease.

‘She Was Managing’ Helen Jones said she always dreaded the sort of old age she has now, marked by childlike dependence.

Married only briefly and late in life, Jones said she had always done for herself, even as a child in Nebraska, where she scavenged for coal along the railroad tracks to help keep her family warm.

Before Scott entered her life, she kept her financial records in accordion files, paid her bills promptly and knew how much money she had, down to the penny.

She was nearly deaf, and a rare disorder of the nervous system limited her mobility. But she could still make her way to the bank and take her wash to a local laundromat.

“She was managing,” said Alice Wilson, a neighbor for more than 30 years. “She’s a self-sufficient person.”

As Jones’ conservator, Scott took over her checking account and put her on an allowance, initially $50 every two weeks.

Scott started making improvements to Jones’ pale stucco home, installing central air conditioning, a new refrigerator and a washer and dryer. Scott paid her own sister $1,550 to paint the house.

It pained Jones to see someone else spending her money. So frugal that she still has a red-knit sweater she wore 60 years ago, she even complained when Scott billed her $40 for a Christmas tree. The plastic one in her garage would have done just fine, Jones said.

Decisions about her medical care were another source of contention.

Scott said in court papers that, months after becoming her conservator, she received medical records indicating that Jones had once been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Scott’s staff began taking Jones to a psychiatrist. He prescribed Zyprexa, a drug used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Jones refused to take it, saying she did not have either condition.

An aide hired by Scott, Gerlie Kirbac, said one of the conservator’s subordinates told her to crush the drug into Jones’ food, but she refused.

Kirbac said she also took Jones to the bank so she could check on her money and was fired for it.

“Melodie told me I can’t handle Helen,” she said. “I said, ‘What kind of handle do you want?’ ”

Scott, 47, whose conservatorship business is the largest in the Inland Empire, said she could not discuss the case because Jones’ medical history is private and her complaints are the subject of litigation.

“It would be horribly unethical to breach Mrs. Jones’ dignity and right to confidentiality,” Scott said in a statement.

In her most recent court filing, a routine list of bills and fees, Scott described Jones as “alert, conversant, obstinate, independent and often paranoid.”

She also said Jones suffered from schizophrenia.

Carefully annotating her own copy of the report, Jones circled “schizophrenia” and wrote a comment in the margin: “BS.”

Early this year, as Jones struggled to reclaim her independence, she lost her younger brother, Frank Janicek.

He was her last bit of family, her Sunday telephone call. A former Douglas Aircraft worker who served in Africa during World War II, Janicek died of pneumonia in January at 85.

Jones wanted him to have a traditional burial. An earlier experience had left her strongly opposed to cremation.

But upon learning that Jones had a conservator, the funeral home called Scott, who made arrangements for the disposal of Janicek’s remains.

In March, a caretaker drove Jones to Riverside National Cemetery, then pushed her wheelchair to a shelter about the size of a bus stop. A bugler played taps. Two women in dress uniform folded an American flag and presented it to Jones.

She was pleased to see her brother put to rest with military honors.

But she noticed that there was no coffin.

Instead, there was a brass urn containing Janicek’s ashes.

Rise of a Profession The concept of conservatorship dates back at least to medieval England, where guardians were appointed to manage the property of people deemed “lunatic.”

In the U.S., California stood for decades as the model for a humane system. The state pioneered legislation in the 1960s and ’70s to protect against arbitrary or needless conservatorships. Adults were guaranteed advance notice of court hearings to appoint a conservator, along with legal representation and the right to a jury trial.

Lawmakers assumed the conservator would be a family member or friend.

In 1969, John M. Mills, an economics professor at El Camino College, rented a room in a downtown Los Angeles church and opened what is believed to have been the state’s first conservatorship business.

Twenty years later, a court banished Mills from the trade after the state attorney general’s office accused him of financial irregularities. By then, he had inspired many others to enter the field.

In most instances, loved ones still act as conservators for incapacitated old people. But professionals now handle about 15% of the cases in Southern California.

Although some have only a few clients, others run thriving businesses, managing the lives of more than 100 adults at once. An elite group focuses on wealthy seniors, employing large staffs and commanding rates of up to $135 an hour.

Conservators hold positions of trust on a par with lawyers, accountants and investment firms. In contrast with those professions, however, they don’t have to earn degrees or pass licensing exams. Anyone with a clean felony record who pays a $385 state registration fee can go into the business.

Only now is the state moving to impose basic standards. Beginning next year, conservators will need a college degree, experience in the field or certain levels of training. Most current practitioners will not be affected, however.

Conservators find clients by sponsoring breakfasts at senior centers and networking at legal luncheons. Nursing homes call when residents become too addled to pay the rent, wanting a conservator to write checks for them. Hospitals call when patients have outlasted their insurance, hoping that a conservator will move them somewhere else.

Once conservators identify a prospect, they can go to court and initiate a case without the client’s approval.

With rare exceptions, they look for people with money. Frumeh Labow, Los Angeles’ busiest conservator, sets a minimum of $300,000 — enough to guarantee her paycheck for at least a few years, if the client lives that long.

Other conservators have a more modest threshold.

“If the person has six months, the doctor tells me she has terminal cancer and she only has $30,000, I’ll take a chance on that,” said Jeffrey Siegel, who runs a large Los Angeles practice.

In many cases, professional conservators have done admirable work. Some have saved seniors from con artists or thieving relatives. Others have ensured that lonely adults lived out their last days in dignity.

Many continue to serve clients after their money has run out.

“We’re in this business to help people and to protect people,” said Ron Patterson, a Bay Area conservator who is president of the Professional Fiduciary Assn. of California. “None of us are here, I believe, to enrich ourselves in any way except the natural way one does in business.”

But even some conservators admit they would not want one themselves.

“I can decide who they see. I can put them in a nursing home,” said Labow. “It’s the biggest imposition on your civil liberties short of being imprisoned.”

Quickly in Control Professional conservators take over with jarring speed.

In many courtrooms, they get emergency appointments on the day they ask for them, based on short forms in which they swear that prospective clients cannot care for themselves.

These hasty hearings are meant for cases in which elderly people are in imminent danger. But professional conservators have made them the norm, The Times found. More than half of their Southern California cases began this way.

Adults are entitled by law to attend emergency hearings. Yet they were not formally notified in more than half the cases The Times examined. Often, judges dispensed with the requirement after conservators told them that prospective wards were too feeble to come to court.

By securing immediate appointments, professionals can gain control over elders before safeguards required in nonemergency cases kick in. For example, in nine of 10 emergency cases, wards were not interviewed by a court investigator before a judge decided they needed a conservator.

The events leading to Jones’ conservatorship began in November 2002, when a chance acquaintance, Cindy Gurrola, gave her a ride to the bank. After Gurrola expressed concern for Jones’ welfare, a bank employee gave her the business card of a Redlands company that serves the elderly.

Gurrola said she called the number and gave an employee Jones’ address. There was no mention of conservatorship or that Jones would be giving up legal control of her affairs, Gurrola said.

About a week later, Jones said, she was napping in her home when a woman walked in and woke her. The woman said she was with “CARE.” Jones said she thought that meant California Alternate Rates and Energy, Southern California Edison‘s reduced-rate program for seniors.

Jones signed a one-paragraph document, not bothering to read it.

In fact, the woman worked for Conservatorship and Resources for the Elderly Inc., the firm owned by Melodie Scott. The document said that Jones nominated Scott to be her conservator.

“I was sleeping here and someone tapped me on the shoulder and said sign this,” Jones said. “And stupid, I signed it, not knowing what I was signing.

“To me, ‘conserve’ means to save and I thought this was a way of saving me money so I wouldn’t have to pay utilities.”

The nomination was dated Nov. 22. Eleven days later, Scott filed an emergency request to become Jones’ conservator. She said Jones could not keep up with her bills, had a house full of clutter and could no longer manage “the activities of daily living.”

Judge Phillip M. Morris granted the petition the next day.

After about a year, Jones decided to fight back. A bank clerk told her that she could not redeem a CD that had matured — only Scott could. Upset, Jones had her caregiver take her to see paralegal Barbara Seifritz at the Yucaipa Senior Center.

Jones appeared so clear-headed and well-informed that Seifritz was surprised to learn she was under conservatorship. So was Bob Roddick, Seifritz’s boss at the nonprofit Inland Counties Legal Services.

At a hearing in March 2004, Roddick told Judge David A. Williams that Jones did not need a conservator.

“She seems perfectly capable of taking care of herself,” Roddick said.

“Well, we already have a conservatorship,” the judge replied.

“I have it, but I would like to terminate it,” Jones told him, confiding her worry that Scott was draining the savings it had taken her 60 years to build.

The judge could have ended her conservatorship on the spot or directed his staff to investigate. He did neither.

He appointed an attorney to review the handling of Jones’ finances, but left her in Scott’s hands.

By then, Jones had gotten a look at Scott’s expense records and saw that her money was going out nearly three times as fast as it was coming in. Scott’s firm is spending Jones’ money at a rate of $84,000 a year, records show. Her income is about $27,000 a year.

At a hearing in August 2004, court-appointed attorney Donnasue Ortiz challenged the conservator’s fees and spending as “excessive.”

Scott sought to justify the expenses by saying that Jones was “near death” when she intervened. She told the court that Jones had left a convalescent home “against medical advice,” that she was “totally dehydrated and malnourished” and that her garage harbored “thousands of rats,” prompting complaints from neighbors.

Jones called Scott’s description “one big fabrication.” She said that she spent several days in a nursing facility after suffering a fall in October 2002 but that a social worker signed her out, saying she did not need to be there. Two friends who drove her home corroborated her account.

As for rats, three of Jones’ neighbors said in interviews that they never saw or complained about any.

In July, with the conservatorship still in place, a frustrated Roddick filed a petition to end it. A judge refused to hear his arguments, saying he had no standing to intervene.

The judge scheduled a hearing for Dec. 2 at which Jones will be represented by Ortiz.

“I don’t know how this is going to turn out,” Jones said outside the courtroom. “My age is against me and my hearing is against me.”

‘Chewing Up Estates’ From the moment seniors are entrusted to a professional conservator, the meter is running.

The law allows conservators to spend their wards’ money as they see fit and requires them to submit periodic reports. Courts must approve their fees, but state law sets no limit on their compensation beyond that it be “reasonable.”

Reports examined by The Times show that conservators have billed elderly people for what one described as “drive-by” property inspections and for moving furniture around a room.

Frances Dell, 90, paid her conservator $715 for accompanying her to parties and informing her that her favorite niece had died, among other services. “She needed someone to cry with and mourn her own mortality,” the conservator wrote in her bill.

Seniors often pay for layers of helpers hired by their conservators — property managers, home-care supervisors, case managers and more. They pay for flowers, chocolates and other gifts that conservators give them on special occasions.

Among the Christmas presents one woman unwittingly lavished on herself: men’s cologne and a stocking with her name embroidered on it, misspelled.

“The word is conserve. You’re supposed to conserve people’s estates,” La Mesa probate attorney Richard Schwering said. “Conservatorship is chewing up estates.”

The bills pile up even faster when seniors or their families challenge conservators’ control.

Wards pay their conservators’ legal bills on top of their own because the court does not consider the parties to be adversaries. Even when conservators oppose their clients’ wishes, they are assumed to be looking out for their best interests.

Street-smart and self-made, Charles Thomas built an $18-million empire by investing in Burger King franchises and real estate in some of Los Angeles’ toughest neighborhoods. After he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s-like symptoms, it became clear he would have to hand over the reins of his businesses.

Thomas had a complex family, with children from several marriages. He picked an outsider — Labow — to be conservator of his estate.

She was appointed in September 1998. Just over a year later, Thomas told his court-appointed counsel that he “wanted Frumeh Labow out of my life.”

Labow refused to go, saying Thomas had chosen her before his illness clouded his judgment.

After five years, Labow remained in charge. Thomas had paid $1.1 million in fees to her, the lawyers his relatives had hired to oust her, and the six attorneys Labow had hired to fend them off and manage his holdings.

Suffering from aphasia, Thomas, 70, is no longer able to speak for himself. His family has come to accept that Labow will be a permanent presence in their lives.

“You can’t fight them if they’re using his money to fight you,” said his son, Michael.

‘Sarah Could Be Trusted’ Court-sanctioned fees are the only compensation to which conservators are entitled for managing the affairs of their clients.

The Times found at least 50 instances in which conservators used their authority over seniors’ assets to benefit themselves or their friends, relatives or employers in other ways. Courts approved many of their actions, though often with incomplete information.

A Sacramento conservator hired his live-in girlfriend’s firm to auction off his wards’ possessions and sell their houses. A San Francisco conservator decorated his apartment with a client’s valuable Chinese paintings.

Melodie Scott acknowledges that she let another professional conservator, Sarah Kerley, live rent-free in a client’s house in Glendale for months. Kerley was married to Scott’s brother at the time.

Scott did not disclose their relationship in her reports to the court. In an interview, she said the three-bedroom, Spanish-style house was in poor condition and that Kerley made repairs in lieu of paying rent and, later on, in exchange for reduced rent.

Scott said she did what she thought was best for the client, Jeanne Ledingham.

“There was no intention ever to take advantage of Ms. Ledingham to the benefit of Sarah Kerley or myself,” Scott said. “I thought I was being a hero…. This charming little house, this beautiful garden — Sarah could be trusted.”

While Kerley was living there, Ledingham paid the utility bills, as well as thousands of dollars to a gardener and a property manager hired by Scott.

Ledingham, who suffered from bipolar disorder, was 51 when Scott took control of her affairs. Scott moved her into a board-and-care and, later, an apartment while Kerley lived in her house.

Ledingham’s daughter, a sophomore at a Louisiana college when the conservatorship began, said she was appalled by what happened.

“There were all these people — conservators, attorneys, judges,” said Candace Ledingham-Ramos. “No one was looking out for my mother.” Marin Support Services for Elders, a nonprofit group for seniors, was supposed to look out for Florry Fairfield.

Fairfield, a retired real estate agent who had never married, lived with her miniature schnauzer, Daisy, in the quiet Bay Area suburb of Fairfax.

Anne Smith, then director of Marin Support Services, became Fairfield’s conservator in March 2001 after telling a court that Alzheimer’s-type dementia had left her “clearly unable to handle her affairs or resist undue influence.”

Less than a month later, Fairfield, then 82, signed a new will. It was drafted by the lawyer representing Marin Support Services in the conservatorship case.

The will made the organization the main beneficiary of Fairfield’s $1.1-million estate and named Smith co-executor.

California law bars professional conservators from inheriting from their wards in such circumstances unless the will was reviewed by an independent attorney or a court. There is no evidence that either step was taken in Fairfield’s case.

The law clearly applies to individual conservators. It is unclear whether it applies in this instance because the beneficiary of the will was Marin Support Services, not Smith. Still, experts said, neither conservators nor their employers should become their clients’ heirs because it creates a conflict of interest.

“What incentive do they have then to keep the client alive?” said Mitchell Karasov, the elder-law attorney. Every penny spent on the ward’s care would reduce the conservator’s bequest, he said.

William Kuhns, the lawyer for Marin Support Services, said he drew up the will at Fairfield’s request. She decided on her own how to divide her wealth, he said.

“Maybe it gives you the appearance of a conflict of interest, but I’ve been an attorney for many years, and I’m very comfortable that this was in accordance with her wishes,” said Kuhns.

Kuhns collected more than $36,000 for his work on Fairfield’s conservatorship and estate.

Four weeks after Fairfield signed the will, a judge deemed her dementia severe enough to disqualify her from voting.

Asked how Fairfield could be too demented to vote, yet able to divide a million-dollar estate, Smith said she could not comment, citing concern for Fairfield’s privacy. Speaking generally, she said that people suffering from dementia could still possess the mental soundness to make such decisions.

“Dementia is not a black-and-white disease,” Smith said. “People can be very clear about some things and very confused about others.”

When Fairfield died, Marin Support Services inherited more than $675,000.

‘Lurking in the Shadows’ Even elderly people who have organized their affairs in advance can be pulled into this broken system.

Robert Mushet thought his mother was set.

Dorothy Mushet had signed papers designating her son, then an engineer with Boeing, to make decisions for her if need be. When she began to show signs of dementia, he arranged for her medical care and managed the money she had inherited from his father and earned as a saleswoman for Joseph Magnin Co.

Then, in September 2002, Robert got a call from his mother’s nursing home. A Santa Barbara court, he learned, had appointed a professional conservator for Dorothy, then 94.

“I hung up the phone and darn near collapsed,” Robert recalled.

His estranged daughter had petitioned for a conservator, saying he had moved Dorothy to the nursing home against her will. The daughter nominated Suzanne McNeely, a leading Santa Barbara conservator. Robert said he moved his mother because it was dangerous for her to live at home in her weakened state.

With court permission, McNeely moved Dorothy Mushet back into her house and hired her own firm to provide round-the-clock aides for four months, for which she later tried to charge $68,000.

Robert ultimately persuaded a court to make him his mother’s conservator, as she had wanted, and to cut McNeely’s total bill from $80,600 to about $24,000.

“You brought a matter to court that shouldn’t even have come here,” Judge J. William McLafferty told McNeely and her attorney.

Though victorious, Robert Mushet said he ran up $50,000 in legal fees. McNeely appealed the judge’s reduction in her fee, ultimately settling for a $5,000 increase.

Dorothy died in March 2003. Her son said he felt strangely grateful to her disease for shielding her from the nasty tug of war that poisoned her final months.

“It would’ve killed my mom if she knew anything about this,” he said.

Gerardine Brown, a state parole officer, had little notion what conservatorship was until she retrieved a letter from her mailbox one night in May 2000.

It said a stranger had asked to become her 86-year-old mother’s conservator. A judge was set to hear the case 12 hours later in Los Angeles — 375 miles from Brown’s home outside Sacramento.

Brown got into her car and sped south, driving through the night. “I didn’t have time to hire an attorney,” she said. “I’m standing there in front of the judge with no idea of what I’m going to face.”

Brown’s mother, Charlotte Shelton, was a retired biochemist whose work for the Navy broke ground for a woman of her era. Brown — her only child — said she called Shelton regularly, trying to persuade her to move closer to her remaining family as her health failed. Shelton clung stubbornly to her home in Eagle Rock.

Sarah Kerley, the same conservator Scott had let live in a client’s house, told the court that Shelton’s doctor had asked her to step in. Kerley arranged for a psychiatric evaluation that led to Shelton’s involuntary hospitalization in a mental ward. Then Kerley filed papers to become her conservator.

The judge appointed Kerley temporarily while a court-appointed attorney assessed Shelton’s condition. The attorney reported three weeks later that he saw no reason why Brown should not assume responsibility for her mother, as long as she did not move her from Southern California. When the judge approved the change, Brown figured the conservator was gone.

Not so. Kerley fought for a continuing role in Shelton’s life, challenging Brown on who should pick her mother’s doctors and who should be her permanent conservator.

Eventually, Brown said, she agreed that her mother would pay Kerley’s fees and those of her attorney if Kerley would stay out of the family’s affairs. Just as the settlement was being finalized, Shelton died.

The conservator and her attorney later collected almost $18,000 from Shelton’s estate.

Kerley did not respond to requests for comment.

“These people are just lurking in the shadows,” Brown said. “It’s just chilling to think it can happen to anybody.”

Postier vs. Marshall Over 13 days beginning in September 2002, the rarest of scenes played out in a San Jose courtroom.

Lawyers for an elderly woman named Ruth Postier took a professional conservator to trial, accusing him of violating her rights and wasting her money.

Russell Marshall, a well-known Santa Clara County conservator, had secured an emergency appointment to look after Postier, then 77, and her husband, Ed, 80, in August 2000.

Until then, the Postiers had eked by, relying on friends for help. Married since they were teenagers, they had no children or surviving close relatives. They had only Social Security for income, having exhausted their savings from an upholstery business.

Their house was their one real asset, worth more than $500,000 despite its crumbling roof and exposed wiring. It held decades of memories, including a wall of ribbons won by Stardust, their champion Doberman.

In the eight months that Marshall was their conservator, the Postiers chafed at his authority.

After Ed allegedly threatened Ruth during an argument, Marshall moved him into a locked nursing home without the necessary court permission. He later moved the Postiers into separate apartments in an assisted-living complex and put their home up for sale.

Marshall also exhausted their meager resources, incurring more than $50,000 in unpaid bills. He hired a family therapist, paying her $65 an hour not only to counsel the couple, but also to shop for pillowcases, wastebaskets and other household items.

After two months, a court investigator came to check on the Postiers. They complained bitterly about Marshall. Public Defender Malorie Street was assigned to represent the couple and objected when the conservator asked to have his temporary control over their affairs made permanent.

Marshall, in an interview, defended his conduct.

“They wanted me to be their conservator because they wanted to move,” he said. He said he had planned the Postiers’ expenses carefully and would not have run up debts if Street’s opposition had not delayed his efforts to sell their house.

In April 2001, Ed died and the county public guardian took responsibility for Ruth.

After Marshall submitted his final report, Street demanded that the court sanction him for abusing her clients.

When the matter went to trial, a videotape deposition Ruth had given months earlier was shown in court. She could not testify in person, having suffered a stroke that left her speech almost unintelligible. Instead, her worn face appeared on a TV screen, oxygen lines running from her nose.

“Did you want Ms. Street to sue Russell Marshall?” the conservator’s attorney asked her.

“Well, he sure didn’t do right by me,” Postier replied. “He made a mess of my life.”

She described how the conservator began removing her belongings from the house as she ate dinner one night.

“Just hauled it out, whether I liked it or not,” she said.

Postier said she had never wanted to leave the home she had shared with her husband for so many years. Though they argued often, she once told a friend she wanted their headstone to say, “Ruth and Ed Postier, Together Forever.”

She raised trembling, papery hands over her eyes.

“I went through hell,” she said.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Hansen found that Marshall had increased the Postiers’ indebtedness and moved Ed without proper authority. Nonetheless, he decided Marshall’s conduct did not constitute elder abuse.

Hansen awarded Ruth nominal damages of $1, saying it was impossible to measure monetarily what harm, if any, Marshall’s actions had caused her.

The judge awarded Marshall and his legal team $75,000. Later, Postier’s own lawyers collected more than double that amount, swallowing what was left of her estate.

Street came away stunned.

“That case sent me around the bend,” she said. “The statutes designed to protect my clients didn’t.”

Shortly before Ruth Postier died on May 29, 2003, her caretakers deposited Marshall’s check to her.

It was for $1.02.

Damages plus interest.

Times researcher Maloy Moore contributed to this report. *

Emergency appointments

More than half of all conservatorships filed by professionals in Southern California between 1997 and 2003 were granted by the courts on an emergency basis, often bypassing initial assessments by court investigators and other safeguards designed to protect wards’ rights. In all, there were 1,160 emergency appointments.

Granted without notice to senior or family: 56%

Granted before an attorney appointed: 64

Granted before court investigator’s report: 92%

Sources: Probate records for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. Data analysis by Maloy Moore

An aging population

The proportion of Americans 65 and older is expected to grow between now and 2030, as is the number 85 and older.

Percent of population, 2000-2030:

United States

– 65 years and older

2000: 12%

2030 projected: 20%

– 85 years and older

2000: 2%

2030 projected: 3%


– 65 years and older

2000: 11%

2030 projected: 17%

– 85 years and older

2000: 1%

2030 projected: 2%

Southern California

– 65 years and older

2000: 10%

2030 projected: 17%

– 85 years and older

2000: 1%

2030 projected: 2%

Source: Census Bureau, California Department of Finance, Times reporting. Graphics reporting by Maloy Moore

Planning ahead

To avoid a conservatorship, or to ensure that someone you trust is put in charge of your affairs, attorneys recommend one or more of the following steps.

A durable power of attorney designates someone to manage your finances. It does not have to be drafted by an attorney, but must be notarized if real estate is involved. If you don’t plan on using an attorney, ask for a “statutory” form at stationery stores or look for it on the Internet.

An advance healthcare directive authorizes a friend or loved one to make medical decisions for you. A kit for creating one can be ordered online through the California Medical Assn. (

An advance nomination designates someone to serve as your conservator if a court deems one necessary.

A revocable trust, also known as a living trust, designates an individual to manage your assets outside court jurisdiction while you are alive and after you die, thereby avoiding the cost of probate. Trust documents must be filed with your bank and other financial institutions.

Be sure to inform the people whom you have designated to make decisions for you. Give them copies of the appropriate documents and tell them where the originals have been filed.

Source: California Medical Assn; Irell & Manella; Mitchell A. Karasov; American Bar Assn. *

About this series

Caring for the aged and infirm was once a family affair. Now, it is a business. In documenting this change, reporters Robin Fields, Evelyn Larrubia and Jack Leonard and researcher Maloy Moore examined records of more than 2,400 cases handled by California’s professional conservators since 1997. They also conducted hundreds of interviews — with probate lawyers, judges and independent experts as well as people under conservatorship and their loved ones.

Monday: How probate courts have failed the elderly.

Tuesday: One conservator’s troubled career.

Wednesday: L.A.’s public guardian — a canceled promise.

This is still going on today by a corrupt court system which breeds criminals, perjury, elder abuse and embezzlement MORE HERE

Stop Abuse of Power Criminals and Predators hide behind Images Silence is Complicity

Silence is complicity Victoria B Henley is a predator who used her power and the courts to help criminals get away with crime

Stop Abuse of Power Criminals and Predators hide behind Images Silence is Complicity

Many people who’ve gone to court looking for justice were shocked when they found out courts don’t care about justice or even evidence. There are many scams and dirty tactics judges and lawyers use and abuse in our courts. One of them is to simply ignore the facts, evidence or witness statements. They just rule in favor of the party who lines their pockets which sometimes is done in the form of county payments such as done by Los Angeles County or bank loans.

With the Harvey Weinstein exposure America has gotten a glimse into the world of predators and the abuse of power. Power comes in many forms, it comes with government jobs such as police, judges and politics. It’s not just about big money, it’s about immunity and being able to influence law enforcement. People with big money can buy big lawyers which can use their connections to influence judges.

We must all look at the 14th Amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Game has been exposed, people with money or power abuse our legal system by bribing judges to ignore the facts or evidence. This silence is complicity and they then become accessories to the crimes. Anyone who take part should be held equally and personally liable.

43 California judges were reprimanded for misconduct last year

Two judges had sex with women in their chambers, one with his former law students, the other with his court clerk. A traffic court judge delegated his job to his clerk. While the judge was in chambers, the clerk heard pleas and imposed sentences.

A family law court judge excoriated two parents who appeared before him as “rotten” and the mother a “train wreck” and a “liar.”

The judges, among 43 disciplined last year by California’s Commission on Judicial Performance, received rebukes ranging from public censure or admonishment to a confidential “advisory” letter. The state watchdog agency documented the transgressions in an annual report that provides a behind-the-scenes look at errant behavior on the bench and how it is addressed.

Sexual transgressions are likely to be viewed with gravity, as are repeated remarks from the bench that belittle and humiliate lawyers and litigants, the new report suggested. The vast majority of complaints against judges result in no discipline, and most misconduct is resolved by sending judges private letters.

“Engaging in sexual intercourse in the courthouse is the height of irresponsible and improper behavior by a judge.” Commission on Judicial Performance

UC Berkeley law professor Christopher Kutz said a judge’s conduct must be extreme before the system metes out discipline. The state has about 1,800 judges, and generally fewer than 50 each year receive some form of reprimand.

“Certainly,” Kutz said, judges disparage lawyers and litigants “much more often than the number of disciplinary cases would suggest. There is a lot of latitude for judicial misbehavior.”

Judicial misconduct may be underreported because few people know there is even a mechanism for filing complaints, said Victoria B. Henley, director and chief counsel for the watchdog agency. FULL STORY HERE

Is the California Commission on Judicial Performance just a front to pretend something is being done?
Most people who file complaints are ignored when they get the standard return letter “We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong”.
Don’t think this is so, File a complaint and find out GO HERE

Corrupt justice: what happens when judges’ bias taints a case?
When Margaret Besen, a 51-year-old nurse from East Northport, Long Island, filed for divorce from her husband in March of 2010, she believed justice was on her side.

Judge William Kent’s preliminary ruling seemed like a first step toward compromise. Margaret and Stuart Besen, who agreed their marriage was beyond repair, would remain in their suburban Suffolk County house, living in separate rooms – and keeping away from each other – while sharing custody until a resolution could be reached.

But within weeks, the situation deteriorated. Stuart Besen, a politically connected attorney for the town of Huntington, had an anger problem, Margaret told authorities. The couple’s screaming matches left Margaret feeling intimidated and their children – a daughter, 11, and son, 7 – terrified, she said. So in August of that year she obtained an order of protection prohibiting Stuart from harassing her. Three weeks later, Stuart entered Margaret’s bedroom and hovered over her as she slept, she told police. They arrested him for violating the order, reporting that Stuart had stared down at Margaret with his arms folded on three consecutive nights. She got temporary possession of the family home.

In the years that followed, Besen’s hopes for an equitable settlement dwindled as she battled a series of harsh and hard-to-explain decisions against her. Though she could never prove anything, she suspected that the scales had tipped for reasons unrelated to the evidence in her case. If true, Besen faced what experts say is one of the most troubling threats to our nation’s system of justice: judges, who, through incompetence, bias or outright corruption, prevent the wronged from getting a fair hearing in our courts. FULL STORY HERE

How to Bribe a judge
How easy is it to Bribe a Judge?
What happens to lawyers when they expose the system?
How those who are suppose to protect the public help dishonest judges

Report slams the quiet way California judges are disciplined
California’s judicial disciplinary agency is too lenient and too secretive, an advocacy group charged Monday in a report submitted to the Legislature.

The Commission on Judicial Performance, established in 1960 as the first agency in any state with the power to investigate judges for ethical violations, dismisses nearly 90 percent of the public complaints it receives and imposes discipline much less often than similar agencies in Arizona, Texas and New York, the report said. It was issued by Court Reform LLC, a nonprofit headed by Joseph Sweeney, an East Bay mathematician who said he was partly motivated by his encounters with family law courts. FULL STORY HERE

Corrupt justice: what happens when judges’ bias taints a case?
California takes steps toward improving judicial accountability
California judges reprimanded for having sex at their Superior Court offices
43 California judges rebuked for misconduct in 2014
California judge reprimanded for driving drunk
Legislature approves audit of judicial ethics agency
Federal Judge Fights Sixth Circuit’s Reprimand
California Judge Reprimanded for Rape Comment Has History of Doubting Victims
Judge Derek Johnson reprimanded for claiming body can ‘shut down’ rape
California judiciary’s toothless watchdog
Santa Clara Co.: Judicial watchdog reprimands local judge
Local judge reprimanded by state commission
Courts Cracking Down On Judges: Experts
State attorney general chooses not to file criminal charges against local judges
When Michigan judges need disciplining

How to remove these criminals who hide behind a robe of shame
Removal of Judges

California Judge Misconduct Victims Testify Against Commission on Judicial Performance

California judge Scott Steiner nailed for getting it on with 2 former law students in his chambers

Attorney Jailed Denied Rights for Exposing Judicial Corruption, Richard Fine California

EXCLUSIVE Former CA Superior Court Judge “Deann Salcido” Blows Whistle On Corrupt Family Law System

Commission on Judicial Performance Internal Procedures Testimony of Director Victoria Henley

The California Cesspool of Judicial Corruption is Inconceivable

Bullies with Badges James Tracy and Jeff Payne Claim Police Punishment Excessive

Bullies with Badges James Tracy and Jeff Payne Claim Police Punishment Excessive

Bullies with Badges James Tracy and Jeff Payne Claim Police Punishment Excessive
It’s obvious to victims today that police punishment is a joke if anything and also the reason why so many bad cops get away with crime. They prove beyond a doubt that there are in deed two classes of people in America. Those forced to obey or else and those who don’t need to respect the people the law. Had it not been for the video evidence both officers would have gotten away with their violations and abuse by lying about it. Lying and perjury by police has become accepted and rationalized. Notice how the handling of the nurse has been labeld “manhandled” imagine if someone did this to one of these officers? The key here is what they really are going to do after saying “violated department policy and undermined public trust”. The department will rehire them and reinstate them after all the media attention goes away. Business as usual with typical “Imaginary justice” which is all for show and just a smoke screen. Why is it we’re sold a bill of “American’s all have rights” when it’s really just a select few who benefit from these so called rights?

Salt Lake City police detective Jeff Payne was fired and his supervisor James Tracy demoted for their roles in the arrest of a nurse who was manhandled and shoved screaming into a squad car as she tried to protect the legal rights of an unconscious patient.

Detective Jeff Payne was fired and James Tracy, his watch commander, was demoted two ranks from lieutenant to officer after an internal review by the Salt Lake City Police Department found their actions toward the nurse violated department policy and undermined public trust.

“I have lost faith and confidence in your ability to continue to serve as a member of the Salt Lake City Police Department,” Chief Mike Brown wrote in a termination letter to Payne that was posted by the Deseret News.

“I am deeply troubled by your lack of sound, professional judgment and your discourteous, disrespectful and unwarranted behavior, which unnecessarily escalated a situation that could and should have been resolved in a manner far different from the course of action you chose to pursue,” the letter read.

Jeff Payne is a 27-year veteran of the department, and James Tracy has worked in law enforcement for 22 years, spending nine years as a lieutenant in Salt Lake City. Attorneys for both men told local media that they plan to appeal the decision. (How many other incidents are there that were not on video or audio which did not get media attention should be the question) How many times to you need to get caught being dishonest for it to matter? How many victims are needed to stop a bad cop?

“I do think that Salt Lake City did a fair job of doing the investigation, and I think that their findings are, by and large, accurate,” Jeff Payne’s attorney, Greg Skordas, told the Salt Lake Tribune. “But I think the chief reacted to a lot of public pressure and scrutiny in making a decision that doesn’t fit the conduct.” How many times is it Ok to commit domestic abuse and can Jeff Payne’s actions be compared to the same?

Police body camera footage captured Payne erupting at nurse Alex Wubbels of the University of Utah Hospital on July 26 after she refused his request to draw blood from an unconscious truck driver who was involved in a head-on collision with a suspect fleeing police in another vehicle. FULL STORY

The Salt Lake City Police Association last week criticized the city’s handling of misconduct investigations for officers involved in the widely publicized arrest of a hospital nurse who properly refused to allow a warrantless blood drawing on an unconscious patient.

In a letter addressed to Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski and Police Chief Mike Brown, the union specifically denounced what it called the “premature release of body cam footage,” which it claimed “corrupted” the investigations of two Salt Lake City officers. ( Actually the truth is it helped get justice and stopped a cover up)

Given that police unions are often the most vocal opponents of body camera use in general, it is hardly surprising the Salt Lake City Police Association is less than thrilled with the video’s release. What is surprising, however, is the association’s decision to argue about body cameras in this particular case.

Make sure you view the first video below before you take sides. Lets not forget the part about what they’ll do if she or the hospital does not do what they say? Is this extortion or again is this good police work and behavior?

A Nurse in Utah Just Won a Half Million-Dollar Settlement Over Her Forceful Arrest
Alex Wubbels, Utah Nurse Arrested For Doing Her Job, Reaches $500,000 Settlement
Utah nurse who refused to draw blood from unconscious patient settles over rough arrest
Police Union Complains About Release of Body Camera Footage in Controversial Blood Draw Incident
SLC police lieutenant demoted after nurse’s arrest appeals, says discipline was ‘excessive’
Utah police officer fired after manhandling, arresting nurse who was doing her job
Utah officer wants to apologize for nurse’s controversial arrest

Detective Jeff Payne body cam excerpts

Nurse Arrest Leads To Utah Police Lieutenant Demotion

Detective Jeff Payne fired over nurse Wubbles arrest

Utah Mall Cop Jeff Payne Is Begging To Keep His Job: The Decision Will Come Soon

The unseen video of officer Jeff Payne saying he will bring the hospital all of the transients.

Police Killed 1163 People in 2016 Alone How Many Must Die Before We Put a Stop to This?

Police Killed 1063 People in 2016 Alone How Many Must Die Before We Put a Stop to This?

Police Killed 1163 People in 2016 Alone How Many Must Die Before We Put a Stop to This?

2017 997
2016 1163
2015  1218
2014 1114
2013 779
Total 5271 People Killed

Death by Officer: An American Epidemic of Police Shootings and Brutality

Unarmed White Man Shot 8 Times & Killed By Police…Officer Cleared Of All Charges

What Do Harvey Weinstein and Tani Cantil-Sakauye Have in Common? Abuse of Power

What Do Harey Weinstein and Tani Cantil-Sakauye Have in Common? Abuse of Power

What Do Harvey Weinstein and Tani Cantil-Sakauye Have in Common? Abuse of Power
“California Judges Are High on the Predator Scale”

A must read article how we’ve exposed just the tip of the iceberg in “Abuse of Power” and victimizing people with money and power.
CORRUPTION WATCH-The most compelling words in Ronan Farrow’s article about the predator Harvey Weinstein in the October 23, 2017 issue of The New Yorker magazine are its first three: Abuses of Power. The salacious aspect of the story may initially attract public attention, but the essence of the it revolves around power – the abuse of power. And that is where the focus should remain. A predatory abuse of power permeates our entire society – a society that has made a lying pussy-grabber its Predator-in-Chief. 

The largest class of people who have been victims of these predators have been women and they have served notice on the nation that they are removing themselves from the victim category.

Ronan Farrow’s article details how Weinstein used his power to enlist the aid of others to hide his behavior and make sure his victims would be silenced. Everyone around him was corrupted; some actively helped Weinstein; others pretended not to know. By using the threat of ruining peoples’ careers and imposing confidentiality agreements, he forced his victims to be silent. One interesting aspect of these confidentiality agreements is that many of the victims seem not to have brought lawsuits, but were merely telling people.

Did Weinstein’s lawyers initiate the contact with these victims knowing that confidentiality agreements would be the end result? Such behavior would seem to destroy any confidentiality between Weinstein and his attorneys since they would be aiding and abetting him to cover-up his criminal behavior.

There is a world of difference between a criminal coming to his attorney because he is being civilly sued — in which case the attorney-client confidentiality privilege attaches — and a client’s coming to an attorney so that the attorney will proactively conceal evidence of a crime. Predators are adept at polluting everyone around them. Bribery occurs when the attorney (1) gives or offers a witness, (2) cash or something of value, (3) with corrupt intent, (4) to influence the testimony of that witness. Penal Code § 137(a).

Like Harvey Weinstein’s friends and associates, many court personnel also jettison their ethics and support predators. As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote:

“Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”

As the disinfecting sunlight of #MeToo shows, predators and their victims are everywhere. Just recently, women in Sacramento spoke out about the predators in and around state government.

California Judges Are High on the Predator Scale

Some of the nation’s worst predators are found in the California judiciary. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal court) has accused the state courts of having “an epidemic of misconduct.”   

Listening to a direct link to that 9th Circuit Hearing, it is apparent that the persons that the three federal judges are pointing to are both women: former CA Attorney General Kamala Harris and California State Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. This highlights the important fact that all power abuses.

Then Attorney General Harris had done nothing to the prosecutor who not only used a lying jail-house informant but who had also taken the stand and committed perjury to bolster the lying informant’s credibility. As Tani Cantil-Sakauye had been California Chief Justice for four years, the indictment that the entire California judiciary had a “epidemic of misconduct” was directed at her, the person who presided over the entire system. As the federal judges made clear, a state does not have an epidemic of misconduct without the complicity of the judges and justices.

But wait, doesn’t California have a Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) to ferret out judicial misconduct? Not really. Don’t judge a book by its cover. (Harvey Weinstein would only wish he had such an effective system as CJP to intimidate his victims.) From its current machinations, the CJP continues to champion California’s judicial predators.

The CJP is Actively Shields Judicial Predators

A lot can be learned about the CJP’s predatory ways by examining its fight to prevent the State Auditor from conducting an audit of its activities. Government Code § 8545.2 requires public agencies — “whether created by the California Constitution or otherwise” — to grant the Auditor access to all agency documents for purposes of an audit or investigation, including documents that “may lawfully be kept confidential as a result of a statutory or common law privilege or any other provision of law.”

To protect judicial predators from sunlight, the CJP has sued the State Auditor in the case: Commission on Judicial Performance v Elaine M Howle, San Francisco Super Court # 16-515308.  The grounds are that its files are “confidential,” ignoring the fact that the statute authorizes the Auditor to review confidential files.

The CJP invents a special form of confidentiality for itself which it terms “absolute immunity.” This claim of absolute confidentiality is typical behavior of abusers like Harvey Weinstein who also thought that he was special and he could continue doing what he was “used to doing” – being a sexual predator. The CJP Rule 102 which sets forth the scope of its “confidentiality” does not use the word “absolute.” In fact, Rule 102 contains sixteen confidentiality exceptions, among them, “information (to prosecuting authorities) which reveals possible criminal conduct by the judge or former judge or by any other individual or entity.” Rule 102(g)

The State Auditor does not publish these files; it reviews them in order to conduct its audit of how the CJP is behaving. The only people who can be “harmed” by the auditor’s review are the CJP personnel and cohorts and judges and justices who may have received special favors. How many complaints against the Chief Justice have been squelched? 

Evidence That CJP Covers-up for Predatory Judges

When CJP receives thousands upon thousands of complaints with virtually no removals, something is amiss (11 judicial removals since 1995). After the federal courts have found an epidemic of misconduct which it attributes to the judges, the handwriting is on the wall. The CJP has been protecting the judicial predators who have been preying upon the public for decades. There cannot be an epidemic of misconduct without wrong doers.

What are the State Auditor’s duties when it uncovers criminal behavior?

Traditionally, one reason to audit a public agency like the CJP is detection of criminal behavior.  When the Audit finds evidence of bribery, does the Auditor turn a deaf ear? When the Audit finds that the CJP allows serious charges to be dismissed without investigation, does the Auditor say nothing?  When the Audit shows that the CJP accumulates multiple complaints against a judge and then waits until the judge retires before conducting an investigation, does the Auditor turn a blind eye? If the State Auditor remains deaf, dumb and blind, what is the role of the State Auditor?

No, the Auditor should take action. Allowing the State Auditor to see the CJP records will expose the decades long cover-up of the epidemic of predatory behavior which the federal court has decried.  And just like with Harvey Weinstein we know how the house of cards falls when confidentiality finally falls.

Louis Brandeis’ “sunlight of publicity is the best disinfectant” proclamation must make him the CJP’s most disliked jurist.

(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: Abrams views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.




Contra Costa Judge Bruce Mills unfit to serve

Judge Bruce C. Mills
California is well known for corruption and fraud which takes place in our courts by criminals like Judge Bruce C. Mills. A poster child for how you can take a dishonest person and drap them in a black robe and call them honorable when in fact they have no honor at all. What’s worse is what a joke the Commission on Judicial Performance is, how they ignore valid complaints and refuse to protect the public.

In a decision First Amendment experts have dubbed “outrageous,” a Contra Costa Superior Court judge Bruce C. Mills jailed a San Ramon man for writing about his divorce on the internet — even though his writings were based on material publicly available in court files.

The judge Bruce C. Mills, insisted in his decision that “matters that are put into court pleadings and brought up in oral argument before the court do not become public thereby” — a position that lawyers say fundamentally misunderstands the nature of court records.

Joseph Sweeney, a judicial reform advocate, served 13 days in County Jail in August after Judge Bruce C. Mills’ ruling, which found that Sweeney’s web postings had violated another judge’s restraining order not to disclose the contents of his ex-wife’s cellphone or computer. The postings described Sweeney’s realizations about her medical history and contact with others that led to the collapse of the marriage.

The information became publicly available in court documents when it was filed without seal by his ex-wife, and in an online appellate court decision upholding the order. As a result, “the cat is out of the bag and the general presumption that publicly filed documents may be read by all carries the day,” said Floyd Abrams, considered among the top First Amendment lawyers in the United States, in an email to this newspaper.

Several other free speech experts also said Judge Bruce C. Mills’ assertion that the information was not public record is flatly wrong. Martin Garbus, widely considered one of the top trial attorneys in the United States, said court documents filed without a sealing order are legally just as public as newspaper articles.

A report cataloging serial acts of misconduct spanning more than 10 years by Judge Bruce C. Mills has been leaked to the public by a court watchdog and whistleblower group.

The 51-page dossier collected both public and “secret” discipline prosecutions against judge Bruce C. Mills  by the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state agency responsible for judge oversight and accountability. The report is embedded at the end of this post.

The report reveals that in addition to two well known public disciplinary actions taken against the veteran Contra Costa County jurist, Mills was also found guilty in three additional incidents where the type of discipline and name of the offender were “private” and not revealed to the public.

The group identified judge Bruce C. Mills as the offending judge in the secret proceedings by reverse engineering details from the public disciplinary actions and cross referencing the information with old CJP annual reports. The acts of public and private misconduct occurred in 2001, 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2013.

Contra Costa County judge Bruce C. Mills who has previously been disciplined
five times by a judicial commission now faces two new charges of ethics violations.

The San Francisco-based California Commission on Judicial Performance said Tuesday it initiated formal proceedings against Superior Court Judge Bruce Mills in connection with his conduct in two cases.

judge Bruce C. Mills, 62, a judge since 1995, has until Oct. 31 to file a written answer to the administrative charges. The agency will then schedule a hearing before a panel of special masters appointed by the California Supreme Court.

Judge Bruce Mills Serial Judicial Misconduct Report: Contra Costa County Superior Court Controversy
2016 Public Misconduct ReportHon. Bruce Clayton MillsContra Costa County Superior Court
Contra Costa County District Attorney Criminal Complaint Against Judge Bruce Mills
Attorney for judge facing misconduct fires back at California commission
Contra Costa judge slapped for action in son’s case
East Bay judge jails judicial reform advocate who discussed divorce online
Controversial East Bay judge charged with illegally doubling sentence
Damning Report Cataloging Career Spanning Misconduct by Judge Bruce C. Mills Leaked by Whistleblower Group
Whistleblower Report Reveals Serial Misconduct by Contra Costa County Judge Bruce Mills Resulted in Repeated CJP Wrist Slaps
East Bay Judge Faces More Misconduct Charges
Sweeney v. Contra Costa County Superior Court(Bruce C Mills)



All Over America Proven Incidents of Lying Can’t Be Wrong, Do Cops Lie?

All Over America Proven Incidents of Lying Can't Be Wrong Do Cops Lie?

All Over America Proven Incidents of Lying Can’t Be Wrong, Do Cops Lie?
We’ve all seen it on TV or witnessed it the fact is “perjury” by public servants is out of control.

“Why do they do it? The main reason they do it, historically and now, is they can get away with it.”
“Cameras prove cops lie, and there are more cameras out in the world today than ever before.”

A cop’s word is often the difference between a person’s freedom and imprisonment. In many cases, an officer and a defendant tell diametrically opposed versions of the same incident — a “swearing contest,” lawyers call it — and a judge or jury is left to decide whom to believe: the professional law enforcement agent who has testified in dozens of trials or the undereducated, underemployed, probably black or Latino guy from an “area known for narcotics trafficking” accused of breaking the law? The scale is even more unbalanced when the word of the defendant is lined up against the words of not one but two, three, four, five professional law enforcement agents. “The words of the police officers would always prevail over the words of poor black and brown folks,” said Craig Futterman, a professor at the University of Chicago law school.

Police aren’t supposed to take sides in court, but of course they do. It serves their purpose to defend the legitimacy of the arrest and the evidence they gathered and handed to prosecutors. They do the investigative legwork for prosecutors and meet with them to discuss case strategy. It’s no surprise, then, that cops often emerge as the prosecution’s best witnesses, their experience on the stand contrasting with a defendant’s understandable nervousness, their veneer of neutrality hiding their personal belief in a defendant’s guilt.

“In criminal cases officers are given a higher degree of credibility,” said Tom Grover, a former Albuquerque Police Department sergeant who now works as a defense lawyer. “They are seen as having no stakes in the matter, of just doing their duty.”

Some jurors see right through this veneer. An officer’s usual aura of credibility doesn’t hold up as well in cities with large black and Latino communities filled with residents who have long distrusted police, said Futterman. Derwyn Bunton, chief public defender in New Orleans, can recount many occasions when, during jury selection, the judge would ask the roomful of prospects, “Who would you trust more: your neighbor or a police officer?” “Very often people chuckle out loud,” he said. “And this was before video evidence became as big as it is today.”

Definition of Perjury
:The voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath :false swearing

Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years. The California Penal Code allows for perjury to be a capital offense in cases causing wrongful execution. Perjury causing the wrongful execution of another is normally punishable by death in countries that retain the death penalty. Perjury is considered a felony in most U.S. states, as well as most Australian states.

Why is nothing done when public servants commit perjury via false statements or writing false police reports?

SOLUTION: All Tax paid public servants should be digitally recorded for their own protection and should be tax payer accessable in case any information or evidence comes into question. Millions will be saved in lawsuits, injustices, abuse of power and crimes by dishonest public servants.

How hard should it be to discipline California cops accused of lying?
California bill would make it harder to punish police officers who have been accused of lying
Legislation making it harder to punish police officers accused of lying isn’t happening this year

5 Proven cases Police Lied
1. Tamir rice
2. Sandra Bland
3. Walter Scott
4. Laquan McDonald
5. Sam DuBose

How many events, murders and injustices need to take place before something is done? How many innocent people will suffer in prison or be sent to death row?

Judge Seeks to Examine Prevalence of Police Lying
Why Police Lie Under Oath
Blue Lies Matter
A new GOP bill would make it virtually impossible to sue the police
Caught on Tape, Caught in a Lie: 5 Times Video Proved Police Were Lying
Cop is caught ‘LYING’ about how he killed black musician whose car broke down
4 cops charged with lying under oath after video of drug bust shown in court
Police Officer Caught Lying About Fatally Shooting A Black Man In Florida
6 Investigates: Taft cop caught lying on camera
What is Police Misconduct?


Police Caught On Camera Hitting A Parked Car Told The Woman She’s At Fault

Judge Caught Police Officers, and Prosection Investigators Lying…

Officer caught lying on dash cam

(Caught Lying!) Cop Caught Planting Evidence After Killing Unarmed Man!

Sandra Bland’s arresting Officer caught lying

Seattle Police Officer Laura Wollberg caught lying, not activating camera and more – no discipline

Lying cop doesn’t know Uber driver was actually a lawyer | New York Post

Police caught lyingto judge in court

Tampa Police officer fired, accused of lying about traffic crash