Legal documents can be uploaded, posted, and discussed in this section
Post Reply
Site Admin
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:38 pm
County: Fairbanks
Your State: Alaska


Post by Destry »



The State Court system in California has been tainted by the undue influence of County Council and the Board of Supervisors.

Los Angeles County pays all the judges in the county $30,000. per year in benefits and perks. The judges receive $22,400. in cash from the county for health and insurance benefits (no strings attached). The state already provides health and insurance benefits for the judges. The judges are given $5,520. for "professional development" to cover educational books and conferences (no receipts required). The judges receive two retirement programs from both the county and the state. Nondisclosure of these perks is intrinsic fraud in each and every court case in these counties.

In reaction to the suggestion of having these benefits discontinued, Judge Charles W. "Tim" McCoy commented: "I think it's unlikely they would attempt to take these benefits away from one-third of the judges in the state. I think it would be unlikely and unwise. You can use those two words - unlikely and unwise." Does that sound like a threat to the Los Angeles county taxpayers? What process was used to create these duplicate benefits to the judges? [Exhibit 1 A-B, Steve Berry and Tracy Weber, "Courts: Jurists, who get similar compensation from the state, say it's well-deserved. Others see double-dipping" Los Angeles Times 08-20-00]

In San Bernardino County, the decision was made by the board of supervisors. The San Bernardino County Supervisors decided to pay their judges an extra $19,500. per year and provide legal representation for the judges.

The County Supervisors in certain counties are deciding to give extra perks and benefits to the judges beyond their salary and benefits from the state. This extra compensation controlled by the Board of Supervisors is creating an atmosphere of undue influence upon the conduct of the judiciary in these counties.

The other important factor creating this atmosphere of undue influence within the courts are the construction of new court facilities. The counties' in the State of California are charged with the responsibility of providing sufficient courthouse facilities within their individual counties. This responsibility is currently being used as a device to influence the administration of justice.

68073. (a) Commencing July 1, 1997, and each year thereafter, no county or city and county shall be responsible to provide funding for "court operations" as defined in Section 77003 and Rule 810 of the California Rules of Court as it read on July 1, 1996.
(b) Commencing as of July 1, 1996, and each year thereafter, each county or city and county shall be responsible for providing necessary and suitable facilities for judicial and court support positions created prior to July 1, 1996. In determining whether facilities are necessary and suitable, the reasonable needs of the court and the fiscal condition of the county or city and county shall be taken into consideration.

The county leaders in California and nationwide have associations such as the California Association of Counties. At the association meetings the various leaders of the counties discuss their concerns, needs, problems, and discuss solutions.

What has been the result of these meetings have been new ways to raise money for the county coffers through various schemes. One of the new schemes to get around public scrutiny and the will of the voters is the formation of nonprofit organizations by the counties. The nonprofit organization, even though organized by public agencies, is not subject to the Political Reform Act. These nonprofit organizations are considered private entities with limited personal liability.

The County Supervisors have then appointed specific judges as members of the nonprofit corporation that owns the courthouse. Thereby, making that particular judge a part owner in the courthouse and beholden to the County Supervisors. The County Supervisors and these judges are then motivated to make judicial decisions that will result in the grant payments necessary to pay for these new facilities.

These nonprofit organizations raise substantial amounts of money through a vehicle termed as "certificates of participation". Certificates of Participation do not require a vote of the county taxpayers. Certificates of Participation are considered a leasing technique and are not considered as debt. The funds are raised in increments of $5,000. sold through a broker to the public at a stated annual interest. By using the color of authority vested in the county, these certificates appear to be offered as public bonds. Thereby, committing intrinsic fraud by misleading the bondholders through disguising the name of the entity.

These Certificates of Participation have been used to finance the building of new courthouses, prisons, schools and business ventures in numerous counties. One such courthouse project had an initial offering of $115.390 million, however, by the time the debt is paid in full the amount owed was $251.693 million. This amount owed is debt to the county taxpayers.

This vehicle has become a lucrative tool for both the county and the state courts. One such nonprofit organization, Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation, has issued six series of certificates of participation and two lease revenue bonds totaling $540.9 million dollars to finance the building of numerous courthouse facilities throughout Los Angeles County. The County Counsel appointed a judge as a member of the Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation.

Then the nonprofit leases these public facilities to the taxpayers to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Sacramento County paid rent for public buildings in 1998 in the amount of $15,623,026, Riverside County rents were $36,106,354. The San Bernardino County grand jury, upon reviewing these practices, directed the county supervisors not to use this financing vehicle. (See exhibit excerpts from San Bernardino Grand Jury Report)

The Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors, Commission Services, provided office and secretarial services to the corporation. The County Counsel facilitated legal matters involving the issuance of the certificates of participation on behalf of the corporation and the county. The parties benefiting by these arrangements are the county counsel, the county supervisors, the state courts and judges, and the bond brokers. The county taxpayers are left with the indebtedness and were excluded from the decision process.

In San Bernardino County, the County and City Officials have been meeting with various judges for over a year planning the development and renovation of a new courthouse complex. These meetings have been conducted in private without the public's knowledge in violation of the Brown Act. Because these meetings have been held secretly, we do not know how these new facilities are to be financed. The county financed the building of the West Valley Detention Center and the County Government Center through certificates of participation.

The County Board of Supervisors maintain control over the application and disbursement of state and federal grants. Many of these grants are specifically for providing court services, including legal advice or representation, court evaluators, court monitors, guardians, conservators, etc. The County has cases heard before this court which have a great financial impact on the county. The County Counsel represents the county in civil litigation to include eminent domain, public entity liability and workers compensation, taxation, juvenile cases, guardianship and conservatorship cases, and administrative law proceedings.

27640. In any county a county counsel may be appointed by the board of supervisors.

27642. Whenever the board of supervisors appoints a county counsel pursuant to this chapter, he shall discharge all the duties vested by law in the district attorney other than those of a public prosecutor.

26529. (a) In counties which that have a county counsel, the county counsel shall discharge all the duties vested in the district attorney by Sections 26520, 26522, 26523, 26524, and 26526. The county counsel shall defend or prosecute all civil actions and proceedings in which the county or any of its officers is concerned or is a party in his or her official capacity. Except where the county provides other counsel, the county counsel shall defend as provided in Part 7 (commencing with Section 995) of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code any action or proceeding brought against an officer, employee, or servant of the county.

A undeniable conflict of interest has developed with the substantial amount of financial benefit that is gained through the court proceedings and the introduction of state and federal grant money. The Counties are receiving substantial grant money based on demand for services in such areas as guardianship, conservatorship, and juvenile law. Since the grant money is based on population need, the County agencies have been motivated toward gaining new customers.

76100. (a) Except as provided in Article 3 (commencing with Section 76200), for the purpose of assisting any county in the acquisition, rehabilitation, construction, and financing of courtrooms or of a courtroom building or buildings containing facilities necessary or incidental to the operation of the justice system, the board of supervisors may establish in the county treasury a Courthouse Construction Fund into which shall be deposited the amounts specified in the resolutions adopted by the board of supervisors in accordance with this chapter. The moneys of the Courthouse Construction Fund shall be payable only for the purposes set forth in subdivision (b) and at the time necessary therefor.

Individuals who are elderly or disabled are finding themselves targeted by these agencies for guardianship and conservatorship services. The more customers, the more money the county receives to provide these services. This abuse was clearly demonstrated in Riverside County where there were over 400 victims. The guardians and conservators were forcing these individuals and their families into court falsely accusing the families of mismanaging the finances of these elderly or disabled individuals. The guardians and conservators would then gain control of these individuals financial affairs and drain their assets through inflated billings.

Juvenile law includes juvenile offenders and child protective services. The county agencies have been motivated to aggressively target juveniles for crime and "alleged" abused children to receive substantial grant money.

27643. The board of supervisors may by ordinance require that the county counsel shall act as attorney for the public administrator in all estates in which he or she is executor, administrator with the will annexed, or administrator, where he or she has priority for appointment as established by law, including all cases under Section 7660 of the Probate Code. However, in the case of a noncharter county or a charter county where there is no conflict with the county charter, the public administrator may employ private counsel (a) in those estates in which he or she is nominated and would not otherwise have priority, (b) for those estates in which he or she is appointed administrator with the will annexed, or administrator pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 8400) of Division 7 of the Probate Code, and (c) in those estates in which he or she is appointed administrator with the will annexed for the reason the executor nominated in the will has refused to serve. In those matters where the county counsel furnishes representation the county counsel shall collect the attorney's fees allowed by law and pay them into the county treasury.

Probate is another area being abused for the financial gain of the county treasury. There is documented evidence of elderly citizens being killed for their assets. One instance, a concerned relative found the relative was missing, located the body at a mortuary identified only as a John Doe, the body had electrocution marks, the assets had been transferred to the county.

Imminent Domain is another area of law under the control of the county counsel. The county allowed their accountant, Gregory Pentony, to steal millions of dollars of money that was earmarked for imminent domain. Gregory Pentony, was the accountant for the County corporation formed to handle imminent domain proceedings. The District Attorney would not allow Mellisa Pentony, his wife, to testify concerning the matter. Pentony was provided a public defender at taxpayer's expense. (See Exhibit newspaper article)

Administrative law proceedings have increased substantially in the area of code enforcement. With the introduction of new ordinances which allow the county and city to add code enforcement costs and fines to the property tax bill, the county is highly motivated to take code enforcement action and gain title to private property.

When the county is the defendant in a civil matter, the County Counsel defends the interest of the county. The interest of the county is to prevail at all costs. This has resulted in drawn out legal proceedings and aggressive court actions designed to increase the legal fees for the Plaintiff. Numerous judges have been observed making improper rulings in cases where the county is the plaintiff.

The financial benefit to the county concerning the aforementioned areas of law are substantial reaching into the billions of dollars. This financial reality has resulted in an improper relationship and conflict of interest between the county counsel and the local judges.

This is compounded by the County Counsel representing the judges in litigation pending against them. This has created another conflict of interest wherein the county counsel is the advocate for both the judges and the county. Therefore, when county counsel is representing the interests of the county before a judge, the county counsel is actually performing the role of advocate in front of a judge for whom he is an advisor. (See Exhibit Cooley vs. Milstein)

27647. (a) If requested so to do by the superior court of the county of the county counsel, or by any municipal court in such county, or by any judge thereof, and insofar as such duties are not in conflict with, and do not interfere with, other duties, the county counsel may represent any such court or judge thereof in all matters and questions of law pertaining to any of such judge's duties, including any representation authorized by Section 68111 and representation in all civil actions and proceedings in any court in which with respect to the court's or judge's official capacity, such court or judge is concerned or is a party.

(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Any criminal proceedings in which a judge is a defendant.
(2) Any grand jury proceedings.
(3) Any proceeding before the Commission on Judicial Qualifications.
(4) Any civil action or proceeding arising out of facts under which the judge was convicted of a criminal offense in a criminal proceeding.

27648. If, because of a declared conflict of interest, any judge, who is otherwise entitled to representation pursuant to Section 825, 995, or 27647, is required to retain his own counsel, such judge is entitled to recover from the appropriate public entity such reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses as were necessarily incurred thereby.

The County receives a financial benefit in the form of state and federal grants for the criminal justice system. The grant money received from the state for the services provided by the District Attorney and Public Defender is deposited in the county's general fund. The County receives grant money for each prisoner, for transporting them to court and for every day that they are incarcerated. The higher the demand for these services results in higher monetary deposits.

In addition, the county has been receiving substantial benefits by reaching monetary settlements in substantial quasi-criminal cases. In San Bernardino County, these monetary settlements have amounted to $25.7 million in the last year. These cases actually involved the county and several businesses conducting criminal activities wherein the settlement was mutually beneficial. The parties did not desire to have their criminal activities disclosed to the public through trial.

The judges of these various counties have not disclosed their financial interests to the parties involved in judicial proceedings. The judges have financial interests in the courthouses, receive supplemental pay from the county, receive legal representation by the county counsel, and have formed an improper relationship with the county counsel and the board of supervisors. This lack of disclosure to the parties is intrinsic fraud. These are some of the financial perks that the judges can receive by ruling favorably for the county.

The judges have been diverting funds to fake nonprofits such as Family Court Services. Then checks have been drawn on Family Court Services' account which have been payable to cash, jewelry stores and country clubs. These nonprofits were never registered with the state or the IRS. In fact, the nonprofit, Family Court Services, was using Los Angeles County's EIN number. This nonprofit had not properly filed to collect donations with the city. Yet, this nonprofit was splitting the donations with the County Bar Association.

The judges have been influenced through campaign funds and endorsements to their campaigns by public officials such as the District Attorney. In one instance, the city attorney who had an upcoming case pending in front of a particular judge, contributed money to the judge's campaign fund. In another case, the district attorney of a county held fund-raisers and heavily endorsed the candidacy of a particular judge. After the election, this judge would be beholden to the District Attorney for his successful campaign.

We, the citizens, of California request an emergency injunction against the Board of Supervisors, County Counsel and the Superior Courts in the counties who have formed nonprofits for the purpose of building and leasing public buildings, have issued the certificates of participation as the method of financing the building and subsequent leasing of these public facilities to the county taxpayers.

We, the citizens, are of the opinion that these certificates of participation are being utilized as a method to circumvent voter approval of these projects. We are of the opinion that the issuance of these certificates of participation by a private corporation which subsequently indebts the taxpayers to millions of dollars in lease payments and debt, is an abuse of the function for a nonprofit organization. The appointment of judges by the supervisors to membership of these nonprofits has created a financial conflict of interest.

We are of the opinion that this is taxation without representation.

We, the citizens, request that all court cases in these counties be reopened due to the conflict of interest that existed at the time of the court proceedings which were not disclosed to the parties. We believe that these improper activities have tainted every single court case involving the county heard before these judges. That would include criminal (pleaded and convicted cases), dependency, probate, imminent domain, conservatorships, juvenile, and any civil cases in which the county was either a plaintiff or defendant. All cases in appeals court remanded back to state court.

These injustices in the courts have been a pattern and practice in these counties. We want every case to be monitored at the Federal level to insure that each citizen is provided with fair and due process as described in the Constitution of the United States.

These county supervisors and county counsels have knowingly and deceptively conspired to form these nonprofits and issue these certificates of participation without the knowledge and approval of the county taxpayers. We, the citizens, request that these individuals either willing resign from public office or that impeachment proceedings be initiated.

The taxpayers are united, our cause is right, and we need justice to be served.

The improper activities of the County Supervisors, the County Counsel, the District Attorney have denied the citizens of these counties of their right to free speech, to seek redress of grievances with the government, to fair and due process, and to equal enforcement of the law.

The County Supervisors, the County Counsel, and the District Attorney have violated United States Code Title 42 USC 1986 because they knew about these injustices and could have taken action to prevent these constitutional violations. The County Supervisors, the County Counsel and the District Attorney have conspired for illegal power over the citizens a violation of United States Code Title 18 USC 371.

The County Supervisors, the County Counsel, and the District Attorney have violated United States Code Title 18, Section 241, because they have conspired to deny the rights of the citizens. The County Supervisors, the County Counsel and the District Attorney have deprived the citizens of their constitutional rights under color of law in violation United States Code Title 18, Section 242.

The County Supervisors, the County Counsel and the District Attorney have defrauded the United States through the misallocation and misappropriation of Federal Grant money in violation of United States Code Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.

The County Supervisors, the County Counsel and the District Attorney have interfered with investigations into these illegal activities in violation of United States Code Title 18, Section 1505.

The County Supervisors, the County Counsel and the District Attorney have retaliated against witnesses and victims in violation of United States Code Title 18, Section 1513.

The County Supervisors, the County Counsel and the District Attorney have laundered monetary instruments through these nonprofit corporation in violation of United States Code Title 18, Section 1956.

The County Supervisors, the County Counsel and the District Attorney have engaged in monetary transactions in property derived from these illegal activities in violation of United States Code Title 18, Section 1957.

That the County Supervisors, the County Counsel and the District Attorney through these illegal activities have formed a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization in violation of United State Code Title 18, Section 1961.

The County Supervisors, the county Counsel and the District Attorney have used income received through these illegal activities in interstate commerce in violation of United States Code Title 18, Section 1962 (a).

Exhibit 1 A-B, Steve Berry and Tracy Weber, "Courts: Jurists, who get similar compensation from the state, say it's well-deserved. Others see double-dipping" Los Angeles Times 08-20-00
Security Pacific bank statements dated 1991
Card showing changing Security Pacific to Bank of America
Bank Statements Bank of America dated 1997, showing address of 111 N. Hill finance department, room 119A, EIN number belongs to LA County
signature cards bear John Sleeter, who is over the jury process for Los Angeles County
1991 Check request going to Family court services for child custody colloquium
Checks 14753 to Family Court Services special fund, back of check to judge's miscellaneous fund from the nonprofits revert to bank account to verify amount
Letter 1996 auditor/controller documenting the money never went into county treasury Bar letter stating they were taking donations, split profits with Family court services
1996 Letter from City stating that there has never been done a notice of intention to collect charitable contributions from family court services special fund
1998 IRS letter documenting EIN number and no correspondence between the superior court judges association and the IRS.
Letter from IRS dated 1996 stating nothing on record for family services special fund
Jan 1999 Letter from County Counsel documenting Los Angeles County EIN number and private association
1998 Association's private attorney stating private association not subject to public records
Three Registers Recorder county clerk letter certificate of nonfiling miscellaneous fund, family services and judges assn.
1996 Letter from the secretary of state and county agency showing the nonprofits never formalized or registered. That these are fake nonprofits.
Three checks front and back showing money being diverted to judges' fake nonprofits indicated judge's personal spending to county club and jewelry stores and cash
Directory of functional listing (note John Sleeter jury) (Note Gregory Petony)
Check payable to country club (note John Sleeter)
1999 felony complaint against Gregory Pentony and Robert Fenton
Minute order Los Angeles County judges recused themselves off the Pentony case, case was sent to Orange County
Newspaper article concerning Pentony case
Motion to Quash from District Attorney suppressing evidence
Minute order dated March 10, 2000 concerning Pentony and Fenton
Newspaper article concerning court system Insight Magazine
Secretary of State dated 1996 nonfiling of family court services special fund
San Bernardino Grand Jury findings on Certificates of participation
Tax returns for several nonprofits formed for public county facilities
“First, let no one rule your mind or body. Take special care that your thoughts remain unfettered... . Give men your ear, but not your heart. Show respect for those in power, but don't follow them blindly. Judge with logic and reason, but comment not. Consider none your superior whatever their rank or station in life. Treat all fairly, or they will seek revenge. Be careful with your money. Hold fast to your beliefs and others will listen.”
“Wise? No, I simply learned to think.”

Post Reply

Return to “Legal Documents”