Facebook went from a good platform for the public to the worst. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg stole the concept and idea from others. He profited from perjury, fraud and dishonesty and now hides behind false propaganda and money. Typical American court system example of how money rules our courts and the term “Justice” is just a bullshit word thrown around to mislead people going to court that they will get a fair hearing.
It’s all about how much justice you can buy. Free speech has been twisted into censorship to stop people from calling a kettle black even if in fact YES 100% it is black. Our constitution has been ripped apart by lawyers and a broken legal system made up of the criminals who manipulate it in their favor.
Did you know “White people” can’t even call other white people on Facebook “White Trash”? Then again it depends who you are and how much money you have as to what you can say in America today. Sad if something looks like a pig you no longer can call it a pig. Yes it’s gotten that bad. Worse there is no honest, fair court in America and even juries are manipulated by lawyers and the judge to come to a conclusion that is not fair or moral. It’s all about making law complicated, misleading and easy to manipulate. Sad but the solution is to ban lawyers from any form of law and make law simple and clear.
Corruption destroys trust and without trust, society breaks down, as described by a piece in the July 22, 2018 issue of The New Yorker, “How E-Commerce Is Transforming Rural China,”by Jiayang Fan.
As Americans are learning, the judicial system is in shambles. California is especially bad, but it is not alone. See also this article. Unlike police officers, judges are free to do whatever they desire, hiding behind judicial immunity. (Mireles V. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9)
To add insult to the indignity of being preyed upon by corrupt judges, Californians have to endure the Commission of Judicial Performance [CJP], which is the watchdog agency where the wolves monitor the wolves who are feasting inside the hen house. Needless to say, this situation is lethal to justice, but due to judicial immunity, “us chickens” have no voice. While the CJP is supposed to discipline miscreant judges, it protects them.
The Role of Trust in Society
Because of corruption in the Chinese consumer market, no one trusted his on-line store. Hence, Liu was going bankrupt. However, when someone vouched for his honesty, people began to trust him. After a while his reputation for trustworthiness grew and people flocked to his website. Now JD.com stands right behind Amazon and Alphabet, Inc, (Google’s parent) as the world’s third largest company. Liu knew that actions do speak louder than words and America’s approach of offering lying platitudes about the great American legal system deceives few people. We need to restore integrity to our courts as Liu did to his online stores.
While China recognizes the need to end corruption, Americans have been encouraging it. When people tried to stop the corruption at Enron, the judges protected the fraud until the entire sham collapsed. Likewise, the courts protected the Wall Street criminals during the 2000s while they were destroying the world economy. After the Crash of 2008, there were no prosecutions. Meanwhile, China hands out life prison terms for corruption. FULL STORY
This short video exposes and tells it all, how OUR courts are infested by dishonest, immoral con-artists in expensive suits who have twisted our JUSTICE system into a money making scam
Lawyers are destroying America, Justice, morals and integrity in America
Have you been victimized by lawyers and now told the only way out is to hire another lawyer?
Have you been bankrupted by insane out of control legal fees?
Have you reported dishonest lawyers to the bar only to have them ignore any crime or abuse?
What’s “ethical” for lawyers
Ethical rules vary from state to state. But generally, your lawyer is supposed to work hard, be honest with everyone, respect your decisions about goals, and be loyal to you. Prosecutors are supposed to work hard, be honest with everyone, and pursue justice.
Here are some signs of ethical problems for lawyers:
Encouraging other people to lie
Not trying hard and making many obvious mistakes
Saying messed up, biased things about race, gender, disability, nationality, sexuality, or religion
Taking a case when there’s a conflict of interest (for example, if your lawyer’s brother is the complaining witness in the case, or if the prosecutor used to represent you before becoming a prosecutor)
For your lawyer, promising to do things on your case and then not doing them
For your lawyer, sharing your personal info without your permission
For your lawyer, forcing you to take or reject a plea offer against your will
For your lawyer, not updating you about your case even when something major has happened
For a prosecutor, going forward with a case without probable cause
For a prosecutor, not sharing info that could help the defense
Here are some things that aren’t signs of ethical problems for lawyers:
Losing a case
Making a mistake
Not doing everything you thought the lawyer should do, or not doing everything the way you wanted it done
For your lawyer, urging you take a plea, even if you disagree
For a prosecutor, going after you even though plenty of people have done worse things
Your lawyer and the prosecutor acting friendly with each other
What’s “ethical” for judges Ethical rules for judges also vary from state to state. But generally, they are supposed be fair and impartial.
Here are some things that are ethical problems for judges:
Bribery and corruption
Saying messed up, biased things about race, gender, disability, nationality, sexuality, or religion
Talking about the case with one side while the other side isn’t there
Judging a case that would affect the judge personally
Here are some things that aren’t ethical problems for judges:
Worse these dishonorable, lying, immoral criminals in suits go on to become the worst Judges who now have impunity.
Just google bad judges or search our website for names like Socrates Peter Manoukian
They’re never held accountable and when totally exposed and caught they’re allowed to retire with full benefits but many go on abusing in the private sectors
like the famous “Family Business criminal Aviva K Bobb
Justice is just another word to get you to go along with the propaganda that America is about equality, justice, rights and freedom. The fact is we’re all slaves to a corrupt system run by the rich and dishonest. Our legal system is a gang run by the Legal Bar where judges are given impunity and power to rule the masses. Police lives are put above the public in reward for being the muscle and protectors of the corrupt. Law is written to protect the dishonorable and criminal with money. America is no different than centuries ago when the dishonest ran things. Life was not worth anything and like Jeffrey Epstein who was quickly and mysteriously removed to avoid exposing even bigger criminals who often hide behind false images of being protectors or good. The biggest business in America is killing and by that I mean war, Trillions of tax payer dollars are given to the elite to build weapons of mass destruction. It’s all sold to the public behind false images of fake words. Justice, Equality, freedom and rights. Just try using them and you’ll find out they’re all lies. I found out how really corrupt our system is when I did the right thing to try and inform a probate court that a false petition based on perjury was used to hide embezzlement and elder abuse. Instead of stopping or investigating the real violators the courts protected them and rewarded them. SEE MY STORY
Hundreds of News stories and investigation and nothing changes
Immunity is abused far too often, what it really means is “Some people are above the law”. It’s been proven time and time again that Police, Judges, Lawyers and Government are above the law and no one can be above the law, no one.
On the morning of Nov. 23, 2004, Malaika Brooks was driving her 11-year-old son to school when Seattle police pulled her over for speeding. When the officers gave her a ticket and asked her to sign it, Brooks refused, believing that she had been wrongly pulled over and thinking, mistakenly, that her signature would be an admission of guilt. The officers threatened to throw her in jail, and when Brooks still declined to sign, a sergeant ordered her arrest.
To push Brooks to step out of her car, one of the officers pulled out a Taser and asked her if she knew what it was. She didn’t, but told the officer she was seven months pregnant. The officers chatted in front of her, casually discussing which part of her body they would tase: “Well, don’t do it in her stomach,” one of them said, “do it in her thigh.” The officers twisted Brooks’s arm behind her back and tased her three separate times—first on her thigh, then in the arm, and then in the neck—before dragging her into the street, laying her face down, and cuffing her.
Brooks sued the officers to hold them accountable for their conduct. Six federal judges agreed that the officers’ use of severe force absent any threat to their safety violated the U.S. Constitution. But those same judges dismissed her case, relying on a legal doctrine called “qualified immunity.”
That doctrine has become one of the chief ways in which law enforcement avoids accountability for misconduct and, as Brooks’s case demonstrates, even proven constitutional violations. Ordinary people—whether they’re doctors, lawyers, or construction workers—are expected to follow the law. If they violate someone else’s legal rights, they can be sued and required to pay for the injuries they’ve caused.
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are held to a much lower standard. They can be held accountable only insofar as they violate rights that are “clearly established” in light of existing case law. This standard shields law enforcement, in particular, from innumerable constitutional violations each year. In the Supreme Court’s own words, it protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” It is under this rule that officers can, without worry, drag a nonthreatening, seven months pregnant woman into the street and tase her three times for refusing to sign a piece of paper.
Qualified immunity permits law enforcement and other government officials to violate peoples’ constitutional rights with virtual impunity. Today, we hear about police shooting after police shooting where officers are rarely if ever held accountable by the criminal legal system, either because prosecutors decline to charge, because grand juries decline to indict, or because juries decline to convict.
Qualified immunity takes away the other avenue that victims of police violence should have available to hold police accountable. But while stories like Brooks’s—abuses of authority that go completely unremedied—occur every day in our legal system, there is a coalition building against qualified immunity, and there is reason to be optimistic that things will change.
The creation of qualified immunity
In the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act), Congress gave Americans the right to sue public officials who violate their legal rights. In Section 1983 of the U.S. Code (the modern analogue of the 1871 Civil Rights Act), Congress said that if a public official violates your rights—whether via police brutality, an illegal search, or an unlawful arrest—you can file a lawsuit to hold that public official financially accountable for his conduct. The language Congress used was unequivocal: “Every” state official who causes a “deprivation of any rights” guaranteed by the Constitution and laws “shall be liable to the party injured.”
Initially, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the straightforward application of this law. In the case Monroe v. Pape, for instance, a Black family, the Monroes, sued Chicago police officers who, in the early morning, broke into their home without a warrant, rounded them up, made them stand naked in the living room, and ransacked every room, emptying drawers and ripping mattress covers. The officers then arrested James Monroe, the father, and detained and interrogated him for hours. In an opinion written by Justice William Douglas, the Supreme Court recognized that the Civil Rights Act allowed the Monroes to sue the officers for violating their constitutional rights. The very purpose of the Civil Rights Act, the Court explained, was “to give a remedy to parties deprived of constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities by an official’s abuse of his position.”
Over recent years, however, the Supreme Court has largely gutted this promise. It has done this by creating out of whole cloth the legal defense of qualified immunity, and then vastly expanding it.
The Supreme Court invented qualified immunity in 1967, describing it as a modest exception for public officials who had acted in “good faith” and believed that their conduct was authorized by law. Fifteen years later, in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Court drastically expanded the defense. The protection afforded to public officials would no longer turn on whether the official acted in “good faith.” Instead, even officials who violate peoples’ rights maliciously will be immune unless the victim can show that his or her right was “clearly established.” Since the Harlow decision, the Court has made it exceedingly difficult for victims to satisfy this standard. To show that the law is “clearly established,” the Court has said, a victim must point to a previously decided case that involves the same “specific context” and “particular conduct.” Unless the victim can point to a judicial decision that happened to involve the same context and conduct, the officer will be shielded from liability.
The Supreme Court has recognized one exception to this rule, in Hope v. Pelzer. There, corrections officers disciplined a prisoner by handcuffing him to a hitching post for seven hours, with his hands above his shoulders, shirtless in the summer sun. At one point a guard taunted the prisoner by giving water to a guard dog in plain sight. Faced with these circumstances, and no prior case that had confronted similar facts, the Supreme Court ruled that the officers’ cruelty was “so obvious” that they should have had “fair warning” that their conduct violated the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Far from creating a meaningful exception, however, courts frequently consider the circumstances in Hope to set the threshold for how egregious an officer’s behavior must be before he is considered to have “fair warning.”
And that is the law today: An officer who knowingly violates someone’s constitutional rights will generally be protected from suit unless the victim can identify previous judicial opinions that addressed the specific context and conduct. This is very far afield from what Congress sought to achieve in the Civil Rights Act. Instead of considering whether a person’s civil rights have been violated and, if so, providing that victim with a remedy, courts shut their doors to victims simply because no prior judicial opinion happened to involve the same facts.
Consider this example of how effortlessly courts use qualified immunity to sweep away serious constitutional violations: In April 2013, police officers in Texas responded to a dispatch describing a Black man in a brown shirt, who was firing his gun at mailboxes in a residential neighborhood. When the officers arrived, the man fired his gun in their direction and then hid himself from view. The officers set up a defensive position behind three vehicles and began ordering the man to put his gun down. A few minutes later, the officers saw Gabriel Winzer, a mentally impaired 25-year-old riding a bicycle, wearing a blue shirt, and carrying a toy gun in his belt. Within six seconds of spotting him, the officers shot at Winzer 17 times, chased him down and tased him. He died at the scene. The officers later claimed that they shot Winzer because they feared for their lives.
As in Brooks’s case, a federal appeals court concluded that the officers violated Winzer’s constitutional rights by using deadly force against him when he posed no threat to anyone. But nonetheless, according to the court, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. To support that conclusion, the court offered one meager sentence of analysis: “We cannot conclude that Gabriel’s right to be free from excessive force was clearly established here.”
Why qualified immunity is a problem
Qualified immunity hinders the protection of civil rights in a number of ways:
1. First and foremost, qualified immunity means that victims of brutality or harassment by law enforcement generally get no relief in court and have no ability to hold offending officers accountable for their actions. That means the officers who commit the brutality and harassment—and the governments that employ them—have little incentive to improve their practices and follow the law. This undermines safety and justice for everyone, and particularly for people of color or vulnerable people who are most likely to be the target of police misconduct.
2. Qualified immunity doesn’t just reduce a person’s chance for victory in a civil rights lawsuit; it means many claims will never be brought to court in the first place. As part of a civil rights law passed in 1976, Congress tried to create an incentive for lawyers to represent victims in civil rights actions and ensure that constitutional rights are safeguarded. To do so, Congress guaranteed that lawyers who represent victims in successful civil rights actions would be able to recover the cost of their time. A huge number of lawyers who bring civil rights actions rely on this law or on the possibility of contingency fees in the event they succeed.
But when a case is dismissed based on qualified immunity, the victim loses and attorneys are not able to recover the fees for their work. Thus, as a result of the Supreme Court’s aggressive defense of qualified immunity, victims of civil rights violations may be less likely to find a lawyer who is willing to represent them and suits will not be brought in the first place.
3. Qualified immunity freezes constitutional law. As mentioned previously, in order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a victim must show that law enforcement violated “clearly established” law by pointing to a case arising in the same context and involving the same conduct. This has given courts a shortcut to resolving cases: Instead of reviewing, analyzing, and applying constitutional doctrine to determine whether a person’s rights were violated, a court can instead simply say that there has been no sufficiently similar case in the past. The result is that fewer courts ever resolve constitutional issues, and constitutional rights are hardly ever “clearly established.”
This shortcut has led to some outrageous results. In an opinion filed in March 2019, for instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that officers were immune from liability for the deliberate stealing of property simply because there was no “clearly established” case law governing the circumstances. In that case, police officers who had executed a search warrant seized about $275,000 in property: approximately $150,000 in cash, and another $125,000 in rare coins, but stated that they had seized only $50,000. In other words, the officers attempted to steal $225,000 while on the job.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit against the officers, granting qualified immunity because it had “never before addressed” whether officers executing a warrant could steal property. And, according to the court, it was not sufficiently “obvious” to police officers that stealing property under the guise of executing a search warrant violated an individual’s constitutional rights. As a result, the Ninth Circuit said that it “need not” even address whether the officers’ stealing was illegal.
This example should show the degree to which qualified immunity opens the door for wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement. No reasonable officer needs a case to tell them that stealing property is wrong. But it’s worse than that. Because the court did not say that the conduct was illegal, the law is still not clearly established that officers may not deliberately steal property when exercising a search. So an officer could, again, claim immunity for the same behavior.
As Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett described this phenomenon: Victims of abuse “must produce precedent even as fewer courts are producing precedent. Important constitutional questions go unanswered precisely because those questions are yet unanswered. Courts then rely on that judicial silence to conclude there’s no equivalent case on the books. No precedent = no clearly established law = no liability.”
In other words, Judge Willett said, “Heads defendants win, tails plaintiffs lose.”
Jeffrey Epstein’s indictment on pedophilia charges casts a net into politically powerful waters. The turbulence created by his arrest is apparent, as pundits wonder if former or current Presidents are implicated in his crimes.
At the same time, without any fanfare or announcement, another investigation into a different class of predator may have been quietly shelved.
Like Jeffrey Epstein, Melodie Scott preyed on the vulnerable and unprotected. Like Jeffrey Epstein, Melodie Scott’s political connections seemed to ensure her invulnerability to legal repercussions.
Crimes Protected by the Powerful
Unlike Epstein, most of Scott’s victims ended up dead. At one point in time, Melodie Scott was described as “the richest and most powerful conservator in California.” She controlled the lives of hundreds of elderly and disabled—”files” she called them—whose assets and whose life decisions she managed. Scott decided if an elderly man got to see his kids, if he was allowed to marry or to vote and where he would live. The stroke of a gavel gave her power over these people, their money and their medical care.
When Melodie Scott ordered an unnecessary tracheotomy for Stevie Price, it turned into his death sentence. Stevie, a youngster who was the recipient of a $5 million dollar award following a “hospital error,” died soon after the surgery. At that point, his award, which had been put into a trust which Scott controlled, was found to be depleted due to her expenses.
Lawrence Yetzer, who went into the hospital with a respiratory issue, was put on drugs which paralyzed his breathing, including Versed, Morphine, Phenobarbitol and Atracrium. He was then pulled off the ventilator and, of course, died. Questions remain unanswered about what happened to large sums of money from his trust, which Melodie Scott controlled.
Melodie Scott does not work alone. She is represented by attorneys, usually J. David Horspool or Bryan Hartnell. Her actions as a conservator must be approved by a judge. Following a number of articles in the San Bernardino County Sentinel about Judge Michael Welch and his seeming knee-jerk approval of whatever Scott presented to him, Welch suddenly resigned from the bench. Questions concerning his loan history were also published in the Sentinel.
Welch went on to serve as a “private judge.”
He was replaced by Judge Kyle Brodie, who also has a fascinating loan history. Scott’s cases have also been heard by Judge James Cox, Commissioner Michael McCoy, Judge Thomas Cahraman, Judge Rex Luther and others.
Is the Secret Service Investigation Shelved?
I was contacted in January of 2017 by a Special Agent from the Riverside Secret Service office. He told me that his agency was investigating alleged financial crimes by Melodie Scott. The Secret Service indeed has the mandate to investigate certain financial crimes.
After a lengthy conversation with him, I turned over a number of files to him. I also gave him the names of others to contact about her. Strangely, most of them have not been contacted.
Scott’s license to practice as a professional fiduciary was pulled in 2015, in the wake of numerous reports about her to the police, the FBI and to at least five country District Attorneys. The DOJ prosecutors ignored these reports, many of which claimed that Scott had murdered and robbed loved ones, and found her guilty of failing to read a trust which she had been assigned to manage.
Jonathan Cooper and Rita Lane of the California DOJ represented the state in its case against Scott. Another California Deputy Attorney General, Mark Geiger, attempted to hide a separate complaint made against Scott, stating he lacked the “criminal expertise” to process the complaint. However, through his failure to assign a complaint number, Geiger effectively and rather deftly removed the complaint from the DOJ records.
Melodie Scott’s powerful friends—judges, prosecutors and more—have protected her for decades. Through her unseemly collaboration with federal agent Jack Smith she is also known to have allies in the intelligence community. So when the head of the Riverside Secret Service office, Hank Price, was contacted by me over a year after the Secret Service first reached out to me, I was not terribly surprised at his verbal tongue-lashing. Price accused me of unethical practices because I had not informed him I was press in the first couple of minutes of our conversation (In fact, I was initially contacted by his office because of articles I had written on Scott). Disturbingly, Agent Price was unable to answer my primary question: “With Scott knocked out of working due to the 2015 revocation of her license, was not the statute of limitations soon to expire?” And when I mentioned to Price that there were also concerns that she had killed off a number of her clients, he barked at me “Okay, we’ll investigate that too!”
In fact, the Secret Service does not investigate murders. That would be the bailiwick of the local authorities or the FBI. Both have been repeatedly contacted for over a decade by multiple Melodie Scott victims, without a whiff of interest.
The media representative for the Secret Service and the spokesperson for the US Attorney’s office have declined to comment on the status of the investigation.
What do Epstein and Scott have in common?
Jeffrey Epstein has a sexy story: A fabulously wealthy, good looking guy, allegedly taking advantage of underage girls with a bevy of important people hovering nearby, potentially implicated. Melodie Scott’s story simply lacks the sex appeal. Old people are generally undervalued in American society and if a seventy-five year old goes to her death a bit prematurely, does anyone other than family really care?
Both Epstein’s and Scott’s stories illuminate that the commodification of life in the US is in full swing, impacting both the very young and the very old. The deeper issue would be why so many people in positions of power have failed to address these decades-long sprees. Melodie Scott has cut a wide swath through Southern California, leaving behind her an unmistakable trail of blood soaked money.
The underside of “elder cleansing” is eugenics, where those no longer of use to society are discreetly and tidily removed. If this indeed turns out to be the dominant motive for the army of involved police officers, judges, prosecutors and intelligence agencies which have protected Scott through the years, then isn’t it time we woke up to this?
Back in 2005, the Los Angeles Time ran a much touted series on conservatorship, entitled “Guardians for Profit.” Once again, Melodie Scott was in the spotlight. The kick-off story to the four part series focused on the plight of Helen Jones, under conservatorship with Melodie Scott. While the Times claimed that they “examined the work of California’s professional conservators, reviewing more than 2400 cases, including every one they handled in Southern California between 1997 and 2003, the Times reporters failed to report on the repeated complaint of the family members — that their beloved parents were dying prematurely due to the actions of the professional conservators.
It didn’t take much time or effort to figure that out. A few visits to the basement of Riverside Probate Court produced names of family members of conservatees of Melodie Scott. A review of local phone books provided numbers.
The stories were notable in their similarity. Dora Baker’s catheter was ordered removed against Doctor’s orders, but on order of Melodie Scott, who had obtained Power of Health Care over the elderly woman. As a result, according to Baker’s daughter-in-law, Johanna , Dora died an excruciating and premature death. According to Judy Lampuu, her aunt, Ann Cole, wasn’t even unhealthy when Melodie Scott obtained conservatorship over her. As the family was kept away from Ann, Judy states she has some concerns as to how she died, so quickly, under the care of the woman whose nickname is “the Black Widow.”
The continued cover-up in the mainstream media of “the Probate Murders” provides insight into the political nature of these crimes.
Melodie Scott is a typical Psychopath monster that finds a position behind a false image only to abuse, commit crime, rob and murder innocent people.
More info about this Destructive monster that works with other dishonest lawyers and dishonorable judges.
Canace J Beason Los Angeles superior court judge probate division California The ignore perjury and crime scam which goes on in every court in America
Imagine going to court with evidence your sister Sylvia Schmidt and her Glendale California Lawyer Christopher Overgaard perjured a petition forcing your mother Gertrude Gettinger into a conservatorship. They told the court they hired a private investigator and could not find you, did not have your address or way to contact you.
In fact we believe lawyer Christopher Overgaard removed himself in fear of evidence proving perjury, conspiracy, elder abuse, fraud, embezzlement and grand theft. Sylvia hires former President of the Pasadena Bar, a well connected Pasadena lawyer Philip Barbaro Jr. Not to forget the fact Philip Barbaro Jr. costs $375 an hour as opposed to Christopher Overgaard’s previous $250 an hour.
The victim’s estate is forced to pay to stop evidence that Sylvia is a criminal stealing from and abusing her own mother and the abuse continues under the courts protection.
With evidence of crime and perjury before Los Angeles Probate Court Judge Candace J. Beason, the judge “ignores it all”. In fact an obviously selfish, full of herself Judge claimed she had no time to read all the case files. We were sent to lunch while the judge read Gertrude’s PVP lawyer Violet M. Boskovich’s highlighted and noted petition copies which appeared to be against me. Remember all this evidence being presented to the court in an official petition would make PVP Lawyer Boskovich look bad. Boskovich is paid via the estate by checks written by Sylvia Schmidt. Everyone wants the conservator to continue because she’s the one with the money and writes the checks. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
This is yet another problem with Probate court in Los Angeles County, its all about money. Lawyers like vultures almost never see the victim and do all they can to create delays, more hearings and issues to create fees. All the while the real victim Gertrude Gettinger is locked in a Dementia home forced to take drugs via Sylvia Schmidt the conservator who got the conservatorship via a perjured and fraudulent petition. Not to forget the conspiracy between Gary A. Schmidt, Sylvia Schmidt, Christopher Overgaard and Michael Jay Movius who claimed he was a private investigator who could not find any family.
Doctors reported Gertrude does not have Dementia and only suffers from depression. Yet due to the limitless power by the conservator who can even influence doctors to force Gertrude to take dangerous psychotropic drugs. Many like Haldol, Seroquel, Paxil which have sides effects such as death. Now over medicated Gertrude looks like something is wrong, the fact is she’s drugged. This is how criminals stop victims from testifying, contacting police or reaching out for help.
This true story gets deeper and more expensive as the years go by. But how is it almost a half dozen judges oversee the case, Probate investigators and a PVP yet no one looks at the petitions, evidence exposing crime and perjury. They all ignore everything to allow this expensive charade to continue. After all everyone involved is billing Gertrude’s estate and not allowing anything Gertrude really wants to take place. Her home is liquidated based on lies and manipulation of the court. A Doctor Paul Liu removes himself from caring for Gertrude due to odd and dangerous actions of Sylvia. Doctors are changed like underwear when their opinions don’t agree with Sylvia that her mother in fact suffers from Dementia or Alzheimer’s.
People are dying, being abused and robbed blind due to judges who ignore the facts, evidence, crime and even abuse. They use the “ignore, ignore and pretend nothing is before them scam”. When a judge does not do their job it’s a crime. Even when reported to the Commission on Judicial Performance nothing is done to stop a crime. It’s all ignored, rubber stamped that all is in order.
Judge Candace J. Beason also uses the delay, delay scam as well as the create more legal costs scam. Everything quietly done behind court room walls and in secret meetings. During the process of everything it’s exposed Sylvia and Gary A. Schmidt embezzled more than $200k in bank account funds which were removed before the conservatorship took place. Sylvia even blames the missing $200k on family where she claims creditors took it. She wrote this in her original petition for the conservatorship. Yet there is no proof of this. Yet during the same time period real property is acquired by Sylvia and Gary A. Schmidt in the form of a trust in Santa Clarita California for a similar amount.
The court or probate department was never informed about the missing bank accounts. In fact Gertrude’s lawyer Violet M. Boskovich when informed and given the actual account numbers fails in investigate. Why’s the court not interested in $200,000.00 dollars of Gertrude’s money?
After spending more than $180k in legal fees it all becomes obvious this is a broken system, a system based on who you know, not what you know. On greed not justice, on what the court is told by slick lawyers who manipulate the truth not evidence and fact. Perjury and dishonesty is out of control in Los Angeles Superior Court probate division. Totally defenseless, weak and old people are being abused and taken advantage of by lawyers and judge. This is like child abuse and done behind closed court room doors. Often records are sealed to stop the truth from being told. Subpoena’s suppressed and stopped which only serve to expose what is really going on, CRIME.
I can attest after growing up with Sylvia Gettinger, AKA Sylvia Velasco, Sylvia Schmidt wife of Gary A. Schmidt has sociopath and psychopath tendencies. She has no conscience, value for family, morals or integrity. She comes from a sue everyone background, committed adultery and hated everyone in our family. Yet the courts easily, without question gave her control over her own mother who she never cared for or loved. In fact Sylvia only began pretending to help her mother after she found conservatorship and was able to bill $40 an hour for simple tasks like redeliving Gertrude’s personal mail.
Los Angeles County Probate Department helps Rob and Abuse Seniors
When Probate investigators don’t investigate seniors are abused and robbed by dishonest family. This happened to Gertrude Gettinger. The courts were given evidence of over $200k in stolen bank accounts by Gertrude’s own child Sylvia Schmidt and failed to investigate any crimes or abuse reported. Read More
Corruption, abuse and even murder take place in our Los Angeles County Superior courts while police do nothing and government ignores reports and abuse
CORRUPTION WATCH-Passim is a legal word referring to something one finds throughout a system. For instance, raisins are passim in Pepperidge Farm Cinnamon Swirl Bread with frosting on top. Thousands of times each day, some poor soul is being screwed in some court in California. That does not mean that every case and every hearing is corrupt. And just as there are ingredients other than raisins in the Pepperidge Farm bread, not every judge is abusive, but all are complicit by silence.
No One Can Rely on Anything a Judge Writes
Most legal cases do not end with a jury verdict, but rather with a judge’s decision. Often the judge must write out the basis for his/her decision. A judge may end a meritorious case by lying and saying that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, knowing that the plaintiff is too poor to appeal. Lay people still cannot comprehend that lying and falsification of evidence by judges are every day occurrences in California courts.
The power to lie in order to harm innocent people is the cornerstone of California’s binding arbitration. In Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 1, the former Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court Malcolm Lucas wrote that binding arbitrations which were wrong on their face and worked a substantial injustice on the innocent party had to be enforced by the courts. Soon thereafter, Chief Juistice Lucas retired at full salary to become an arbitrator. Since he could readily lie, cheat, and twist a legal record into a poisonous pretzel, his services were very much in demand. What sort of legal system promotes injustice?
In her dissent in the Monchrash case, Associate Justice Kennard wrote that Chief Justice Lucas “never mentions the judiciary’s paramount obligation to do justice, and the rule it announces — which requires trial courts to endorse decisions known to be substantially unjust — is its very antithesis.” Justice Kennard was naive to think that truth and justice had any place in California’s new judicial order after the elections of 1986 (which is another entire story). All she could do was document the destruction of our judicial system.
Power Corrupts, but Corruption Destroys
No one should believe anything any judge writes in any opinion. It might be true, it might be 100% false. No one in the public has any way to know. Take a look at Judge John Torribio in Norwalk. He invents facts and states that “Black is White” as an Undisputed Fact, and then his fellow miscreants on the Appellate Court say, “We must accept the Undisputed Facts as True.”
No! That too is a lie. Appellate Justices can look at the evidence, but when the appellate justice has told Judge Torribio how he should rule, it is unlikely the appellate justice will reverse Judge Torribio. Byzantine is too mild a word to describe the maze of corruptionism which infects the California judiciary.
As shown in a recent CityWatcharticle, when there is an honest judge, his or her removal from the bench is likely. After Orange County Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals exposed that the Orange County District Attorney and the Sheriffs’ Department were using lying jailhouse informants, he was off the bench and kicked upstairs. Yet, the bizarre Los Angeles County Judge Gregory Alarcon is still on the bench. Here’s another link to his Robing Room page. In a judicial system where dishonesty is a virtue, one can expect Judge Alarcon to keep on going like the energizer bunny.
In the weird case of HERO v City of Los Angeles, case # B285553, Judge Torribio saw no connection between destroying rent-controlled housing and increasing homelessness. He claimed that because the City allowed the developer to evict all the poor people before it applied for permits for its boutique hotel in Hollywood, the hotel project did not cause the homelessness. (Maybe Judge Torribio is displeased with HERO’s attorney, but should the client suffer?) Why is this cretin still on the bench? He has proven to be an outright liar in the SaveHywd case and he claims the constitutional right to discriminate against Jews.
But is he worse than Judge Richard Fruin? Los Angeles City Council operates according to an extortion-bribery system whereby each member of the city council has sold his/her votes to each other member of the city council. In 2006, Penal Code § 86 criminalized vote trading. In December 2016, Judge Fruin, ruled that the City of Los Angeles is above the law. His legal word was “non-justiciable,” which means beyond the power of the courts. Thus, the criminal vote trading continues unabated.
The number one factor in Los Angeles’ huge increase in housing costs is the criminal vote trading system at City Hall. It allows each councilmember to make whatever corrupt deal he/she wishes with a developer with full knowledge that the project will receive unanimous City Hall approval. The by-product of this corruption is that the cost of all residential property escalates out of control.
When a developer knows for certain that he can buy any piece of residential property and then build whatever he wants, he will pay a huge premium for that property. The developer’s purchase price becomes part of the “comparables” by which the listing prices of other homes are set. A family, however, uses its home for living so it wants to pay the lower Living Space value. Unfortunately, so much LA property has been bought by developers, that families are forced to pay Developers value. Then for thirty years, they must pay an outrageously high mortgage to Wall Street, and of course, their property taxes are two to three times higher than they should be. (BTW, what’s that thing where judges refi their homes without paying principle or interest?)
With corruption passim throughout the judicial system, Los Angeles will continue deteriorating. Since Gov. Jerry Brown refuses to take action against the Chief Justice, judicial corruption will escalate.
Las Vegas Nevada Police Officer Derek Colling is a perfect example of a broken system where Police Unions help problematice cops keep their jobs and stay employed in law enforcement so they can keep on killing. Officer Derek Colling ws fired yet able to get hired at another department and again murder an innocent person.
Derek Colling: “The Most Dangerous Cop in America” Identified as Shooter
The name of the deputy who killed Robbie Ramirez has not yet been publicly released. However, since the initial reports of that shooting Ramirez’ family has identified the deputy who killed him as former LVMPD Officer Derek Colling. No doubt that has not been confirmed by Albany County officials because Sheriff Dave O’Malley, who hired Colling even though he was fully aware of his previous firing, is currently running for reelection. With voters heading to the polls later today, reports that an unpopular hiring decision by O’Malley has resulted in a fatal shooting would be pretty inconvenient for him.
The family has further stated that Ramirez spent his entire life battling mental illness and this was well-known throughout the community. In fact, according to the family, Corporal Colling knew Ramirez personally, having graduated high school with him. As was previously stated by Randy Ramirez, his brother Robbie and Derek Colling even played baseball and sang on the school choir together during that time.
Therefore, he would undoubtedly be very much aware of Ramirez’ mental state and his tendency to run away from conflict. This obviously brings into question why other means of resolving the situation seemingly weren’t used prior to shooting him. Also, Robbie Ramirez’ own mother, Debbie Hinkel, frequently conducts training clinics for police officers as the chair of the Albany County Mental Health Board. She believes that Colling did not follow that training or properly attempt de-escalation tactics and has characterized the shooting as a murder.
Of course, those of us in Las Vegas that remember Derek Colling’s time as an officer with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department likely not too surprised that none of those alternatives were employed. Even before he was fired for an incident in which he beat and falsely arrested a man who was legally filming him in public, Colling already had a long and violent history.
That history included two fatal shootings in 2006 and 2009. In the 2009 shooting of Tanner Chamberlain, Colling was the only officer to fire a shot and had arrived on the scene within only seconds of making that decision to shoot. Chamberlain, who was just 15 at the time, also had a history of mental illness and was having a manic-depressive episode, similar to Ramirez. Although he was holding a knife at the time and attempting to hold her in front of himself, Chamberlain’s mother has always stated that he would not have hurt her and instead was actually cowering behind her out of fear from the police.
Officer Derek Colling, who is the voice and title of the upcoming film “in a world of hurt”, has murdered again. This is the 3rd time he has murdered while being a police officer. He was fired from LVMPD for beating mitchell crooks while filming in his own driveway. Mitchell won a 100,000 dollar settlement. Colling was fired after a 9 month paid vacation costing taxpayers 108,000. Derek colling was hired by albany sheriff despite concerns raised by the victims of collings blue privilege of terror.
When one goes to court with evidence, witnesses and documents all proving crime, abuse or wrong only to find out the judge ignores it all you realize how bad our courts have become. The fact is the commission on judicial performance; the legal bars are all just fronts that help cover up these crimes by pretending to be images of protection. It’s a huge scam and conspiracy made up of lawyers. They’ve taken the crime of “ambulance chasing” and made it into “business as usual”. This is the way of Harvard and the legal bars create legal fees no matter the cost of life, family, morals or law. Law is to be twisted any way you can as to make a profit. Then abuse the statute of limitations to get away with it.
The system is obviously broken; once you’ve been victimized you realize just how bad it really is. The unbridled power of a dishonest judge allows them to manipulate their muscle i.e. authorities to aide them in their crimes and abuse as the federal government ignores your cries and reports of violations.
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.
“The decorum and bias and the perfectly unethical behavior of the judges is really rampant,” said Amanda Lundergan, a defense attorney in Royal Palm Beach, Florida, who confronted a nest of judicial conflicts in her state’s rapid-fire foreclosure rulings – dubbed the “rocket-docket” – following the housing market collapse. “It’s judicial bullying.”
Judges in local, state and federal courts across the country routinely hide their connections to litigants and their lawyers. These links can be social – they may have been law school classmates or share common friends – political, financial or ideological. In some instances the two may have mutual investment interests. They might be in-laws. Occasionally they are literally in bed together. While it’s unavoidable that such relationships will occur, when they do create a perception of bias, a judge is duty-bound to at the very least disclose that information, and if it is creates an actual bias, allow a different judge to take over.
All too often, however, the conflicted jurist says nothing and proceeds to rule in favor of the connected party, while the loser goes off without realizing an undisclosed bias doomed her case.
“Everybody should have the right to ensure the judge sitting on their case doesn’t have a conflict,” said Mary McQueen, executive director of the National Council on State Courts. “It’s absolutely imperative that people have full faith and confidence in the judicial process.”
‘Explain, defend or apologize’
Hundreds of judicial transgressions have been uncovered during the last decade, with results that cost the defeated litigants their home, business, custody, health or freedom.
Some of the best-known cases involve judges who ultimately did suffer consequences for their behavior, including Texas judge Christopher Dupuy, who bullied four lawyers who filed conflict-of-interest recusal motions between 2011 and 2013. Attorney Lori Laird asked that Dupuy bow out in 2013 because she’d represented Dupuy’s ex-wife in the couple’s custody battle in Galveston. The judge responded by slapping her with 37 counts of contempt, demanding that she “explain, defend or apologize” for her motion. He later sentenced her to 220 days in jail, although she didn’t serve any time.
“It was the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever seen,” Laird told Contently.org. “It also caused great damage to both of my clients.” Dupuy was admonished in November – after he’d already retired and was sentenced to two years’ probation for pleading guilty to misdemeanor counts of perjury and misuse of government property.
But court critics say that one reason judicial violations are common is because they frequently go unpunished. When litigants ask a judge to back away because of a conflict, they risk being told no, then face possible retaliation, so many don’t bother. If a litigant or an attorney files a complaint with an oversight body, there’s only about a 10% chance that state court authorities will properly investigate the allegation, according to a Contently.org analysis of data from 12 states.
The analysis shows that a dozen of these commissions collectively dismissed out of hand 90% of the complaints filed during the last five years, tossing 33,613 of 37,216 grievances without conducting any substantive inquiry. When they did take a look – 3,693 times between 2010 and 2014 – investigators found wrongdoing almost half the time, issuing disciplinary actions in 1,751 cases, about 47%.
The actions taken ranged from a letter of warning to censure, a formal sanction that indicates a judge is guilty of misconduct but does not merit suspension or removal.
Click To Learn MoreActually removing a judge was a rarity. Just 19 jurists in 12 states were ordered off the bench for malfeasance, which is about three per decade for each state. And even that result is becoming less common, with only one removal in 2014 and three in 2013 among all 12 states.
The states examined – California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota, Colorado, Washington, Georgia and South Carolina – were chosen because they comprise a representative sample from different populations and areas of the country and because they had matching data for the years 2010 through 2014.
California, which created the first judicial disciplinary body in the country in 1960, had a dismissal rate of 98%. It did not suspend or remove a single judge in 2013 or 2014 and acted just once over the last five years, removing a sitting judge in 2012. Colorado’s lone judicial action since 2010 was a suspension in 2013. Texas has not removed a judge in five years, though it has suspended 23 for varying lengths of time.
One discouraging factor is the secrecy under which these commissions operate. Allegations against a judge are commonly kept confidential unless a sanction of some kind is imposed. New York’s CJC, for example, is prevented by law from disclosing whether anyone has complained about a judge, discussing specific allegations, revealing what evidence might have been presented or what steps, if any, it took to investigative.
When conduct boards do act, the sanctions usually amount to an admonishment that may be embarrassing but costs the judge little.
Among those still on the bench after ethical violations are Louisiana judge Robin Free. Free oversaw a personal injury claim in 2010 by a man and his wife, Israel and Leslie Robles, who were hurt in an oil field run by Houston-based fracking contractor Integration Production Services, Inc. The trial had begun when the two sides agreed to a $1.2m settlement. As he mulled signing off on the deal, Free arranged for some post-trial R&R at Casa Bonita, a hunting and fishing ranch in George West, Texas, owned by the victims’ lawyer, David Rumley. He flew there aboard the Rumley firm’s private jet.
It wasn’t Free’s first ethical blunder. In 2001 he presided over a fouled-water case against Dow Chemical, trying to resolve the matter even as his mother was a member of the plaintiff’s class. Free is still serving on the bench after being docked 30 days pay in December and forking over a $6,723.64 fine.
Raoul Felder, the well-known New York divorce attorney, served as a CJC board member between 2004 and 2008, helping the commission sift through thousands of complaints. He came away from the experience perplexed by its decision-making.
“I wouldn’t say [the CJC] is toothless, but it’s arbitrary,” Felder said. “It can be unreasonably tough on judges who commit trivial offenses while going easy on judges who are really bizarrely out of the mainstream, doing things they shouldn’t be doing.”
Judicial discipline at the federal level is almost non-existent. A Contently.org examination of the most recent five years of complaint data shows that 5,228 grievances were lodged against federal jurists between 2010 and 2014, including 2,561 that specifically alleged bias or conflict of interest. But only three judges were disciplined during those years and each got the mildest rebuke on the books: censure or reprimand. None was suspended or removed.
The numbers suggest that at least some of these judges’ rulings did not pass the smell test: 4,168 of the dismissed complaints were tossed due to a lack of sufficient evidence, bringing up the possibility that some litigants raised valid concerns but failed to find definitive proof. FULL STORY
How Corrupt Is America’s Judicial System?
Speech: Activist Judges Abuse their Authority
What is JUDICIAL DISCRETION? What does JUDICIAL DISCRETION mean? JUDICIAL DISCRETION meaning
Judge + Prosecution Misconduct: Biased and Unbalanced Justice Examined