Let's Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family –and "Conciliation" — Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption through Common Law Discovery (1997 Interview)

with 11 comments

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption Through Common Law Discovery (1997)

During 2016 blog “house-keeping” action, I re-read this 1997 Interview published in “Antishyster.com” but found posted in “Famguardian.org” (ads show it to be possibly a conservative/libertarian or perhaps even survivalist mag.  So what, if the information in article stands on its own two feet?)  about Los Angeles County and a judges association, what happened to the proceeds from MCLE (Continuing Education) classes, and how to find out.  I added some quotes from it.  This interview has been HIGHLY underestimated and STILL  valuable information.  If better understood, it would most likely end any questions about the vailidity of the “Broken Courts / Flawed Practices / [now more promoted as “Safe Child”  loose coalitions of specific organizations and on-line followers.
It would “Shine the Light” for real on the presumptions among these groups of the problem being “Judges, Mediators, GALs and Custody Evaluators  JUST don’t understand perps” or “They believe a psychologically unsound “parental alienation theory” and about any other excuse one might make up to exonerate the exceptionally bad custody and divorce (and visitation) decisions being made nationwide. That premise leads to a predictable solution of “we need more trainings.”  But the trainings is where the money is — and apparently, some of it — getting lost.
In my opinion (see this blog for why), it’s less “they just don’t understand” and more “they just don’t CARE.”  What’s more, think about how much any functional, ETHICAL judge already has invested in his or her career, social and professional life (and/or real estate).  If the core operations are corrupt, which this certainly indicates they ARE, to expose it is basically professional humiliation for having participated in the system, or feigned (?) ignorance, and financial destruction of the sort many parents are already familiar with.  I really think it’s up to the common people to, if possible, use “common law” to go get the financial facts and then compare them to the proper use and destination of public buildings (such as courthouses) and funds raised by private associations which may happen to have judicial memberships, or beneficiaries, regardless of WHAT buildings they are in, IF they violate certain laws.
Originally published 1/24/2013. This Post is Sticky (one of 9 sticky posts) meaning, it stays near the top. Current posts show below all sticky posts. Also, I just moved the “Supervised Visitation” section to a separate post (and of course expanded that one) on 6/6/2013.

File this Article under “What a Difference One Person can Make, if that person: Has Guts, Will Obtain Evidence, Look at Evidence, Come to Logical Conclusion regarding Evidence Obtained AND Publicize It! Includes Marv Bryer’s discoveries, especially in the mid- to late 1990s.

Marvin Bryer’s discoveries began when his daughter was involved in a custody battle for her son. Apparently a judge received a bribe to rule against Mr. Bryer’s daughter, and as a result Mr. Bryer discovered a judicial slush fund bank account, and a common law discovery for overcoming judicial immunity.

Right away, we are in the financial category: Bribe, Slush Fund, Bank account, overcoming judicial immunity.   Also in this (fairly short) post:

Another question: What’s the difference between a “Family” court and a “Conciliation” court? And why are so many programs in the courts being pre-planned by membership of a private nonprofit association which (eventually — after people started pestering it to get its own EIN# and quit hiding and evading taxes under the County’s EIN#) called “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts,” which previously was a “Conference of Conciliation Courts”?

Also in this post:

Report From Judges Blasts California Court Bureaucracy By MARIA DINZEO  ShareThis        SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a sweeping call for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a report from a committee of judges found the agency has been operated as the director’s fiefdom, has strayed far from its original path and has been deceptive about finances and personnel. The judges also criticized the bureaucracy as top-heavy, overpaid and badly organized. Their long-awaited report proposes a drastic reorganization that includes cutting the staff by one-third and moving the agency from its lavish San Francisco headquarters to a cheaper space in Sacramento.


Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption Through Common Law Discovery

[in ANTISHYSTER http://www.antishyster.com 972-418-8993 Volume 7 No. 4, p. 51ff]

1997 interview with Marv Bryer.
[I ASK READERS: ] Can you read 7 pages “for the cause”? And think about it?  If Yes, and If given a brief pop-quiz of about 10th grade level on what it’s talking about, how much of the vocabulary or ideas could you remember?


Marvin Bryer’s discoveries began when his daughter was involved in a custody battle for her son. Apparently a judge received a bribe to rule against Mr. Bryer’s daughter, and as a result Mr. Bryer discovered a judicial slush fund bank account, and a common law discovery for overcoming judicial immunity.

Right away, we are in the financial category: Bribe, Slush Fund, Bank account, overcoming judicial immunity.


Underneath this, I also pointed out that (for example, in California) the shifting of literally trial courts, to the state level away from the local, AND of the workforce (county employees) of the courts to become instead trial court employees — moves the entire power structure up to the state level — but under Administration (“AOC”).  What does this mean?  How about shifting the bureaucracy of court operations up to the State level, where it’s harder to sue (see “immunity”).  It also centralizes power and control — and for this matter, I have not note that “AFCC” is very active at the state level under this particular Judicial Council’s AOC.

Table is repeated below:

Report From Judges Blasts California Court Bureaucracy By MARIA DINZEO  ShareThis        SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a sweeping call for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a report from a committee of judges found the agency has been operated as the director’s fiefdom, has strayed far from its original path and has been deceptive about finances and personnel. The judges also criticized the bureaucracy as top-heavy, overpaid and badly organized. Their long-awaited report proposes a drastic reorganization that includes cutting the staff by one-third and moving the agency from its lavish San Francisco headquarters to a cheaper space in Sacramento.

In the 221-page, 11-chapter document, the Strategic Evaluation Committee also recommended cutting high-level positions, closing regional offices and eliminating entire divisions of the vast bureaucracy that sits atop the court system.      Based on a year-long investigation, the massive, crisply-worded report does not pull its punches.

That 221 page document should be read– it shows the centralization and expansion of control in the administrative sector.

 


See Large Yellow Inset Box below this opening text (which I added May, 2013), and take it from there. Check back from time to time (I may later pull that opening text into a separate place).. Please trust me [OK, just consider — check it out against other evidence] that the next link is one of THE most important ones any person in a custody battle (male or female) should be reading, and thinking about.. Very few sources will focus on this when it comes to “reforming the courts” “protecting children” or in short, any good and noble cause such as might be the topic of an federally funded (or private nonprofit) initiative.

This post is PRIMARILY to promote this ONE link. It’s a 1997 interview of a grandfather witnessing his daughter’s custody battle, I believe in Los Angeles. You don’t get much more relevant and central than what’s happening in the Los Angeles County Courthouse. This is where the “Conference of Conciliation Courts” began and, in a real way, a good deal of the entire system we have today (although definitely national and international alliances were involved early on). It says:

Marvin Bryer’s discoveries began when his daughter was involved in a custody battle for her son. Apparently a judge received a bribe to rule against Mr. Bryer’s daughter, and as a result Mr. Bryer discovered a judicial slush fund bank account, and a common law discovery for overcoming judicial immunity.

Right away, we are in the financial category: Bribe, Slush Fund, Bank account, overcoming judicial immunity.
He got (from the bank — not through FOIA, which can be forestalled more easily) the records of all Donations from the County Bar — to the Superior Court. The County Bar was an Association — and I have another post about Bar Associations, because the topic is so vital.

Judges have immunity for what they do on the bench — but Bar Associations do not. If there is a conspiracy between bench and bar…He is not talking “they just don’t understand” (custody matter) — but words relating to the handling of money: fraud, grand larceny, racketeering; in other words, taking money for funds that don’t exist — then the angle of approach is getting the evidence and understanding the pattern in those areas..


 From the Interview, plain font = Marv Bryer talking, interviewer comments are in italics

…But it’ s my daughter’s case that’s so unique here, it’s what we uncovered involving a ju- dicial slush fund and the Continuing Legal Education for lawyers program (which I believe is nationwide).

In other words, if there’ s a scheme in California where a group of Los An- geles judges extort money from the pub- lic in return for favorable verdicts, then there’s a strong probability that a simi- larschememayexistinothercitiesand states across the nation. Then, y our story is significant because it may provide evidence of systemic judicial cor- ruption across the USA. And more importantly, you seem to have found a strat- egy to overcome judicial immunity.

I’m investigating an area where they have absolutely no imm unity – their associations. They can’t claim immunity because an association can be sued. 

In other words, if a single judge commits unlawful acts from the bench, he can easily hide behind his personal immunity. But if it can be shown that that judge is working in association with other judges, then just like a conspirac y, there is not only no collective immunity, there’s no personal imm unity either?

Exactly. The y have immunity for wha t they do individually inside a cour t, but what they do outside — taking bribes and collectively setting up cases in their associa tions they have no immunity whatsoever because their “corpora tions” or associations have no immunity. Tha t’s an exciting insight and I’d lik e everyone in the USA to join me in a cru- sade to get our country back

 Then there’s a brief discussion on how a “raid” on some office can actually be for the purpose of grabbing evidence so that others can’t get to it. (I’m thinking of the FBI raid — years later, like in 2011 — on the Lackawanna County (PA) Family Court, at a time when there had been allegations of fiscal double-dealing (double-dipping) on the part of some of the county, or county courthouse-based personnel.   But here, they referred to a different situation.  Continuing on that reference from this 1997 article …..
ONCE that this has apparently taken place sinks in, as well as the concept of FRAUD (the potential for making up aliases — checks to be written to (government) funds that do not exist — it should be a very loud, clear, and final “wake-up call” to question why are the protective parents and other advocacy groups NOT pursuing this obvious line of inquiry and instead, soaking up others time and energy reporting on outcomes and recommending, for example, MORE trainings and federal oversight of the courts (say, what??) — instead of a concerted effort to track the court-connected corporations and see where that money went….

…They don’t want to review evidence in- volving the money-laundering scheme. In fact, there are boxes of checks back to 1962 involving the judges and the court that the distr ict attorney doesn’ t dare touch because once he touches he has to investigate

I was looking through copies of three years of bank statements you sent. Most of them are from the Bank of America for the “LA Superior Court Judges’ Association”. How did you get hold of the documentation?

That’s a heck of a story and a lot of people are still shaking their heads on how I did it. The courts can’t even believe it. I used common law. A case called Copley Press v. Superior Court from San Diego around 1992. …

By using common law to argue the public has a right to know — certain information cannot be kept confidential. When you deal with the court you can’ t file a Freedom Of Information Act or even certain kinds of public record act requests. But under common law you certainly can make those requests and that’s exactly what I’ve done.

With no cost to me, I first asked the bank for a list of the donations from the county bar to the Superior Court of Los Angeles. They got a little shook up and battled me for one month but finally

gave it to me. However, they only gave me the fronts of checks. So I subpoe- naed the backs of the checks deposited into the American International Bank — from there I followed the money trail (which is w hat we all have to do whether we’r e dealing with the Democratic Na- tional Party, the GOP, or anything where there’s illegal money).

W hat’ s the signif icance of the back of the check compared to the front? For example, if the front of a check says it’s g oing to the “L.A. Judges’ Associa- tion,” why do we want to see the check’s back?

===>>>Fraud. What they’ve done is created aliases on the fronts of the checks where the checks are made out to a fund which does not even exist (it a ppears to be a court of law). Some of the checks I have are made out to “Family Court Services Special Fund” — but there is no such fund. But the backs of the checks show the money in one instance deposited to the “Judges’ Miscellaneous Expense Fund”. <<<=== !!!

We have a state law called State Penal Code 530 — when you take money under assumed character it’s a felony and any money over $400 is tantamount to grand theft larceny — State Penal Code 487. We’re looking at major crime.

You’re doing outstanding work.

Thank you so much. I appreciate the right to come on your show because I’m having a hard time in Calif ornia get- ting my word out to the public.




 

This approach and information runs completely contrary to any and just about ALL the advocacy efforts in any number of advocacy groups  and shows MOST of them for who and what they truly are: self-serving collaborators who have intentionally engaged in a virtual “media blackout” on the economic angle to the courts. That last comment was not made lightly; it was made from a place of both observation, a good deal of personal acquaintance, networking — AND lookups. (Like most of my opinion, I no longer “take it on faith” but administer a “show me the money!” as well as often watch a group’s actions and affiliations develop over time).

After reviewing a mutually self-congratulating self-promoting group of individuals (and their nonprofits — the ones I could locate in time and space, that is) I decided that needs to be a separate post.

The True/False — Relevant/Irrelevant Factor

It is just about as important to know who is NOT telling you truth they have already been told, and rejected, than to know the truth itself. It saves time — and time often means life in these situations. The clock is always ticking fast while children are growing up, and abuse is a factor. I look forward to publishing that post.


. . . . . (text deleted, separate post on supervised visitation) . . .

So: The Federal Government has the Funds. (See “CAFRs/income tax, investment on returns, eminent domain, etc.). The DOJ/OVW (formerly headed up by a family court judge, Susan B. Carbon, courtesy Pres. Obama, in 2009) administers millions of $ of federal grants — and the grantees are sometimes PUBLIC officials’ NONPROFIT associations. Those nonprofits, obviously (if legitimate) have budgets — income, expenses, revenue, depreciation. Often they have employees, and conference, etc. expenses; including travel, hotel, publications (which they then sell) and help influence policy to create professions. The public funds this unknowingly, more than half the time, and the DOJ/OIG — when it gets around to sample audits — doesn’t appear to have teeth, although no doubt all employees and materials for the audits are also public expenses.



Apparently no one gives a crap about the taxpayer in all of this. That’s what we give for giving the US Government too much money, too much privacy (freedom of operation), too much of “the benefit of the doubt” when anything in the public’s welfare is on the agenda — and not enough FOIA requests or, as it was noted back in 1997 — Common Law Discovery involving bank accounts, bar associations, and superior courts.

Just an Idea:

Here’s how we could stop, or at least reduce! domestic violence, including homicides, and child abuse, including molestation, and AVOID inducing life-long trauma and related disabilities (physical and psychological), especially against women and boys and girls, at least when it’s already come from men who can’t be trusted without supervised visitation to see their own children. And that is: Separation. There’s a standard. If someone cannot meet the standard of “don’t assault” or “don’t molest”– then they don’t visit. I believe men and women are fast learners when they choose to.

Here’s how — instead — the public employees and those on the federal grants faucet chose instead to “stop” it: Form hybrid centralized courts where the language of “right and wrong” is altered to the language of collectivism: the “family.” Create specialized “problem-solving” practices, courts, procedures, and finally laws mandating the same — to handle “domestic violence (which is a misdemeanor or felony under civil or penal codes) to persuade EVERYONE involved it’s not dangerous, it’s just a dispute, and anyone who disagrees will be diagnosed with a “conflict” disorder (or PAS), forced into therapy, and made a public example of. They will be marginalized and deprived of basic human rights. The public will be made co-conspirators by funding it, and incited to get angry at the marginalized and dissidents for becoming a burden to society.


Just another idea:

Another way to have fewer pissed-off fathers around [possibly reducing the violence]] is quit stealing their dollars to start with! by shutting down any, and all, money-laundering and otherwise financial fraud — in the public sector, specifically the JUDICIAL sector. This would also definitely slow down epidemic of burgeoning mental health industry, which profits from more and more social trauma and turmoil.

One reason I added the Supervised Visitation (section) above is that in the Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption article below — one of the topics is payment for the trainings to become such a provider. (actually I see it’s re: CLE seminars — but elsewhere on this same topic, Bryer did note the trainings. I’ll find & link to it, of you can search “Judges Slush Fund, Insight Magazine” and probably find it.

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption Through Common Law Discovery

1997 interview with Marv Bryer.

Can you read 7 pages “for the cause”? And think about it?

If given a brief pop-quiz of about 10th grade level on what it’s talking about, how much of the vocabulary or ideas could you remember?

Show me in some comments that, as an adult (college grad, high school grad, parent, non parent) you can understand the basic commentary here:

  • What did the person interviewed do?
  • How did he (it’s a he, FYI), obtain evidence?
  • What type of evidence did he find, and from whom ? Was it obtained under “FOIA” requests?
  • What conclusions did he draw about what he found?
  • What type of programs were involved in the bribing of a judges (answer can be a few words, one word, or even an acronym).
  • Does this material have anything (at all) to do with whether or not individual judges, custody evaluators, or attorneys, such as GALs, can or cannot recognize a crafty smart abuser as dangerous to children, or whether they have sat through enough specialized training to tell the good guys from the dangerous guys?

(Pls. answer yes, or no).
__________________________________________

Note: Guts without Good information is commendable, but not so useful.

Speaking of “guts,” see also Richard Fine, who in 2009 spent 18 months in coercive solitary confinement, largely in retaliation for exposing systems of bribes paid to the judges through the county, child support withheld improperly at the DA’s level, and in general demanding that the judicial system follow its own rules. Did I mention, they also disbarred him and granted the judges retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for taking this form of bribe?

Many parents have spent time in jail, probably retaliatory, through the custody system for failing to pay up, on contempt of some order, and I know at least one case where a mother was jailed because a daughter refused to visit an abusive father. After 30 days, the daughter relented, and for the sake of her Mom, made the visits (Oconto County, Wisconsin). You wouldn’t believe how many ways there are to put parents in jail if they don’t succumb to prior threats and intimidation, or extortion, nicely and without “high conflict.”

However, how many of them have spent 18 months in solitary confinement like Mr. Fine (who was released, age 70, as I heard it, on Yom Kippur by a retiring judge)?  Yet, not only was this under-reported by the people complaining about custody courts, but what he exposed at considerable trouble, has also been largely ignored by the same, who are busy correcting the training, education, and professional standards of professional niches which (in my opinion) have no business in the courts to start with.

The message behind that incarceration was “don’t mess with our money, and our systems.”

For more information, although it’s probably a little longer, read through and see links at the text underneath my Gravatar. I have been at this for several years now (investigative blogging and reporting) and have a sense of where things are coming from based on a number of factors, and language used in the reporting.

May you prosper and be in health, and may solid information and appropriate language to understand these “family court matters” help your soul also do better, at least than it may have been perceiving “there’s a problem,” but not seeing clearly its causes. This is like trying to figure out why the equation “4 + 5” is consistently producing a “3” in court decisions, without even figuring out (and going to look for) the missing elements of the equation, and understanding that the “formula” is closer to “4 + 5 + ?? = 3 and that the “??” has to be some combination that looks more like “4 + 5 + -6 = 3.. It’s illogical And then to continue doing so AFTER others have previously published this. Perhaps if one’s associates are not mentioning that there might be some missing information (rather than trying harder and harder to deal with only the 4+5 elements to make them add up to “9,” we’ll never get that the formula, or even closer to it.

No one said it was going to be easy — but this is important stuff!

Another question: What’s the difference between a “Family” court and a “Conciliation” court? And why are so many programs in the courts being pre-planned by membership of a private nonprofit association which (eventually — after people started pestering it to get its own EIN# and quit hiding and evading taxes under the County’s EIN#) called “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts,” which previously was a “Conference of Conciliation Courts”?

What does that mean, legally?

How many states did this happen in — has it happened yet in your area?

Law was passed in Arizona, it says, in 1962:

Conciliation Services of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County was established in 1962 after the Arizona Legislature enacted Conciliation Services law (ARS 25-381). Conciliation Services offers:

  • Conciliation Counseling for parties contemplating divorce.
  • Mediation of Legal Decision Making and parenting time plans for families of divorce, post-divorce or in paternity actions.
  • Evaluation Services to the court when parents are unable to agree upon a parenting plan.
  • Parent Information Program provides information to divorcing parents, or parents involved in other domestic relations actions, concerning what their children may be experiencing during this emotionally difficult period.
  • High Conflict Resolution Class designed specifically for high conflict parents.
  • Premarital Underage Counseling for persons under the age of sixteen contemplating marriage.

(see choices on left margin of site)

Apparently High Conflict is Bad. Treatment to eliminate conflict between parents can be accomplished by a court-ordered class (only $50). Sure, yeah — and I have a great deal for you on some land under the Brooklyn Bridge.

Perhaps if enough generations are taught through authoritarian and arbitrary K-12 (thereafter?) and authoritarian courts that “conflict” is bad, and “high conflict” is even worse, enough of us will be submissive and gullible to forget the resemblance between these systems and flat-out slave-hood. Serfdom.

Even the California Judges fighting their own AOC call it the fight over “fiefdoms!”

From May, 2012 (part of an ongoing power struggle from California’s Trial Court Judges — with 58 counties, we have the largest court system in the country — and the Judicial Council with its Administrative Office of the Courts. In 1997, a Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act (I believe) centralized the funding; there have been scandals, shut downs, stepd0wns, new leadership, and a group of judges formed their own association to protest perceived centralization.

Written up here in “CourthouseNews.com” (an excellent source of who’s suing whom nationwide, well-edited, by the way.  Search Back issues on “Administrative Office of the Courts” or “California Judicial Council” and learn about their “trials and tribulations”)”

Report From Judges Blasts California Court Bureaucracy By MARIA DINZEO  ShareThis        SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a sweeping call for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a report from a committee of judges found the agency has been operated as the director’s fiefdom, has strayed far from its original path and has been deceptive about finances and personnel. The judges also criticized the bureaucracy as top-heavy, overpaid and badly organized.       Their long-awaited report proposes a drastic reorganization that includes cutting the staff by one-third and moving the agency from its lavish San Francisco headquarters to a cheaper space in Sacramento.

In the 221-page, 11-chapter document, the Strategic Evaluation Committee also recommended cutting high-level positions, closing regional offices and eliminating entire divisions of the vast bureaucracy that sits atop the court system.      Based on a year-long investigation, the massive, crisply-worded report does not pull its punches.

(This document is actually good reading or skimming, even for those not living in California, but who have similar AOC’s.  It talks about increasing centralization of control, expansion (MAJOR) of staff and offices, and with it, financing.  Most important (see a flowchart/organizational diagram on p. 47, at the bottom (left, viewed properly) is “Center for Families and Children in the Courts” — see also pp. 81ff which describes this “Center.”

This segment processes a lot of grants which go to influence our custody decisions.  For example, Access/Visitation funding, and many others.

I’m resisting the temptation to lay it out here, but if you hover cursor, it can be seen.  Increasing centralization.  Why is this important?  Because, for one, many AFCC personnel are at the pinnacle of power, handling the grants, and affecting the mandatory mediation, education, curriculum, promising practices, etc.  — for the courts which deal with children, juveniles, and families.  CENTRALIZATION in THE FINANCING & EXECUTIVE HANDS of JUDICIAL matters:

Here’s the first page (page 81) of description from that report, with some comments from me:

Division Description

The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts. The Statewide Office of Family Court Serviceswas created by a 1984 legislative mandate to provide leadership, development, assistance, research, grants, education, and technical support to the state’s family court services programs through direct services and community partnerships.

(para mine..  That sounds great, right?  However, this is where the grants, including fatherhood/marriage promotion, etc. grants come in, and engaging more PRIVATE groups (nonprofit organizations) as influences in what happens in the “family court services programs” which are not themselves even the family courts — but programs initiated or started by the courts.)

The Center for Children and the Courts was created by the AOC in 1997 in response to the results of a state-wide needs assessment of California juvenile dependency proceedings conducted by the National Center for State Courts.

Why this is significant:  First of all, the AOC is an administrative center to serve justice (the Judicial Council), not private interest.  however, the National Center for State Courts is — again, a private, nonprofit formed long ago, and I just learned recently that, pretty early on, it became affiliated with (became the “secretariat” for, i.e., started serving the private interests of….) the “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.”  See links to its 1983 or thereafter newsletters, on my “Vital Links” section of blogroll.  the announcement was made to AFCC membership– not to the public — back then.  This gave increased PRIVATE INTERESTS more influence and control of the judicial sector of our nation’s court system. (Se also an 1983 AFCC newsletter Vol2#2:)

(from my “Vital Info-Links”)

On p. 5, above (right before the announcement of AFCC’s having gotten NCSC as Secretariat to help them, and around all kinds of news of conferences, materials for sales, new services being offered to Conciliation Courts that some of its (AFCC’s) membership have set up — i.e., when NJ got a legislative ruling to set up a Family Court, help from AFCC members from Los Angeles (Hugh McIsaac) and Connecticut (Tim Salius) helped.) — anyone can see where why “Richard Gardner” (PAS) theory got into the judicial brains:  he was a keynote speaker at a 1982 San Diego conference run by the Conciliation Courts which this group was working since 1962 to set up….)

(if inset doesn’t display, pls. just browse the newsletter.  a full-page description of the NCSC follows, which I have copied below):

The formation of a specialized center within AOC’s administrative structure institutionalized judicial branch commitment to improving outcomes for children and families. The CFCC is the only division of the AOC that is dedicated to a substantive area of the law. The multidisciplinary model has since been recommended to other states.

From its inception, the CFCC’s mission has been to improve the quality of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, parents, families, and other users of the California courts. The division provides a wide range of services to family, juvenile, and collaborative justice courts

.
The division’s major functional areas are court services, legal services, financial assistance and administration, education, research and information for decision making. These functional areas have remained the same since the division was founded. However, some changes to program content and operations have occurred. For example, in 2002 capacity to support issues of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and trafficking was increased when the federally funded Violence Against Women Education Project (VAWEP) was transferred to this division from the AOC Education Division as a result of a change in state funding.

In addition to providing court consultation, technical assistance, publications, judicial education and mandatory education for mediators, evaluators, and administrators, CFCC staffed the council’s Domestic Violence Practice and Procedures Task Force. In 2009 CFCC received a federal Recovery Act grant to fund promising practices in local courts and to conduct a needs assessment of court responses to domestic violence for Native Americans.

 

From the 1983 AFCC newsletter link in table above — this describes the NCSC, and mentions another group merged into it, plus I notice the focus on Mental Health towards the bottom:

“In 1981, the National Center’s Board of Directors authorized the founding of the Institute on Mental Disability and the Law as a unit within the National Center; it will be a focal point for continuing the work done by the National Center in this important area.”

So we should be able to see what the private organization NCSC has to in common with the private organization AFCC and its focus on behavioral health psychology, psychotherapy and psychoanalyzing, particularly of children or adults who report abuse.  (see feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler, “Women & Madness,” etc.  This was a major source of help to the organization AFCC which is responsible for having lobbied so hard at first to get mandatory mediation (membership includes those providing mediation services,a nd training for it), or Conciliation Law, or Parent Coordinator laws, or High-Conflict Courts, or etc. etc.   This coincides with the development of groups beginning to confront the issues of battered women, and follows the enabling of no-fault divorce in California.  Timing hardly coincidental, in my opinion….

Remembering — assuming you read the first link here, Marv Bryer 1997 interview — I am not aware of ANYONE “outing” the system of slush-funding of such operations through MCLE and other trainings, prior to 1997 — it goes all the way back to 1962, in California and in at least Arizona here:

Superior Court >Family Court >Services >Conciliation Services

Conciliation Services: High Conflict Resolution Class
The High Conflict Resolution Class (HCR) is a single four-hour class taught at the court designed specifically for parents in high conflict. Because research has shown that parental conflict is harmful to children, the class will address specific strategies that parents can use to reduce their conflict and the negative impact it has on their children along with research on what is behind these conflicts.

The HCR class differs from the standard “parent education” classes in that there must be an order from the court directing one or both of the parties to attend. With that order, each parent is automatically sent a notice to appear for a class at a specific date, time, and location. Parents are required to attend separate classes. If there are questions about the class or a need to reschedule the class the number to call is 602-506-6124.

A $50.00 fee is required to attend the class. Payment may be made at the Clerk of Superior Court Filing/Service counters. A fee deferral or waiver may be requested at the time payment is made. Payment may also be made by credit card over the telephone by calling (602) 506-7036. Payment must be made 5 days prior to the class date. You are required to bring a receipt for payment, a signed fee deferral or waiver, or a confirmation number of telephonic payment with you to class.


Don’t you Get it Yet? The Money is Made in the Trainings!

[[comments added 5/20/2013, next two paragraphs]]

The idea behind Conciliation Courts, already specialized courts lobbied for by activist judges, was to bring on the Counseling and Training for Private Profit as a “Public Service” and [originally, paid at the County level?) in part through Federal Grants to the States] at the Public Expense.. and that was just the beginning

Marv Byer’s piece, above, shows what was done with at least SOME of the checks provided for training to become a court-appointed SOMEONE — they were written out to nonexistent business entitites // funds! and deposited somewhere else. Hence the question about a “judicial slush fund.”

The Training [of Parents, of Supervised Visitation Providers, and/or CLE classes, etc.] is where the money is made, I guess in some situations it can be written off as expenses, AND it can be easily laundered because almost no one (in the public sphere) is paying attention, or even has a CLUE of the overall system.

There are other ways, but through public (civil servants — judges, court-appointed attorneys, GALs, etc.) sitting on privately run nonprofits taking contracts with the courts (previously strategized for setup through certain trade groups “incorporated” (formed for the purpose) years ago.

Whatever they say they are doing, the processes in place create ongoing revenue streams, and ongoing clients (some of them legitimately needing help, after going through the dissociative and insane procedures set up by the same groups!!) who really might be classified as “insane” — from trying to make sense of the insane system!

Some people are very smart about how specific, trademarked, narrow (as to its ideas base) and formulaic LANGUAGE can be used to sell programs.  This is just “spin” or Public Relations.  Situations observed can be labeled according to criminal or civil code, generally speaking, as a crime, or as some form of tort. I’m no attorney, but it doesn’t take too much analysis to realize that crimes and torts are a little more clearly defined than “mental hygiene” let alone social science-based terms.

Sheer Genius:  Planned Linguistic Anomalies makes Judgment Completely Arbitrary, provoking sometimes Confusion, sometimes Anger, Sometimes Indignation and Outrage, and sometimes Post Traumatic Distresss (shell-shock) from the Courts themselves.  This self-perpetuating scenario is now, and always was, a fantastic (if completely immoral) business plan. 

Bringing the wealth future, safety, and jurisdiction of individuals who might have otherwise had legitimate, prosecutable causes of action under Criminal or Civil (breach of contract, etc.) Codes — under the jursidction of “Family Law” to start with, and, within Family Law, under to previously strategized (not in front of hte public, but in prviate conferences by private trade organizations — and we now have the names, and early newsletters, and some of the dates and states of incorporation (or lack thereof), as well as incorporators, etc.) — of these ogranizations.

EITHER GET SOME ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING

Or, GO INTO EITHER “DYSFUNCTION” OR “DENY & DISSOCIATE” MODE — which is the last thing needed for target populations.

Information overload — leading to confusion, paralysis, or other strong emotions over the human rights violations which are now intrinsic to the family court system, and in short to government as we know it these days.

However, it is not necessary to either stay passive about changing the course of things we don’t like, nor is it necessary to, while worked up and ready to act — to let one’s passion or outrage be used by others to drive one either over a cliff to mass destruction (like buffalo, or lemmings, or the famous “herd of swine” were driven over a cliff when Jesus threw a “legion” of spirits out of a man plagued by them.

It’s 2013 and in ONE month, the public funding program generally called “welfare,” is up for re-authorization. Historically, it was AFDC, then TANF (1996), then DRA (2005?) then ARRA (2009?), then Claims Resolution Act (2010). I’m sure another wonderful name will be made up for the “block grants to states” that free up millions of dollars to be lost in the cracks, while blending private and public money, religion and state, to support PhD’s in social sciences, marriage and relationship education, and a HOST of “forensic psychiatrists” (or psychologists, who are always trying to get even with the psychiatrists, particularly when it comes to the ability to prescribe Rx, i.e., they really like to be “psychopharmacologists”) which are treating the symptoms of all kinds of child and adult horrific abuse (sexual, physical, psychological, etc.) that no one cares to really stop.

Processes are designed to produce certain results.  In this realm of family court, we have a literally, Conciliation Court taking jurisdiction over Matters defined in parts of Family Law itself as “Domestic Violence” and in parts of the Criminal Code (some being nearly the same category as “Crimes Against the Person”) as Crimes Against Decency and Public Morals (particularly relating to children).  Clearly these crimes continue to be committed around the country — so how can we reconcile ourselves to the fact that they are?  Do judges just not “get” this and hence need someone to teach them?  It seems to me that one obvious result will be widespread cognitive dissonance through conflict of mutually exclusive rhetoric (language) to describe the exact same situation, by the exact same individuals — i.e. certain incidents.

Why should criminals and victims of the same crimes be forced to engage in “reconciliation” services through Conciliation Courts?  When — or more accurately — where is a crime not a crime, and who gets to decide whether it is, or whether it isn’t?

From 1983 and earlier, the nonprofit organization (notice I use this word a lot:  “Nonprofit” — it’s important!) AFCC was selling and renting tapes, curricula, video, and trainings on its version of how to think about domestic violence, including ROLE-PLAYING involving judges, mediator, and/o police officers!).  Re:  Domestic Violence — the theme is “It’s a FAMILY affair.”

As a domestic violence — lots of it — survivor, I have to disagree.  You cannot contain this type of violence within the family — it’s a public and a criminal matter; it has a way of not staying well-contained within the walls of a home, or to the family members.  Moreover, if a family becomes a group that simply covers up such domestic violence and handles it all in-house, they might as well (except for the nonprofit status) be a religious group, or a cult.  Or a gang.  What kind of group normalizes assault and battery, terroristic threats, stalking, threats to kill, and homicide — how is that a “family affair?”

Yet this is exactly what the organization in 1983, A SF Judge plus Judith Wallerstein, mediator (et al.) was promoting.

The means through which they promoted it was to form revenue-raising nonprofits in which some membership were already on the public payroll (i.e., were “civil servants”) — judges; and some were not, but wanted some business to come there way FROM the public payroll (and private as well, the parents, and operating foundations and private grants, etc.)

This puts a real unfair advantage to the public which obviously doesn’t have time to keep track of a nation of nonprofits — and all their legislators and governments as well, while supporting the same governments through their taxes, and contributions to their pension funds which are, sometimes, face it — invested right back in government itself, including debt service to money previously raised.

Here’s that link again — please read for a better understanding of why I had to write this blog, and why the judges (etc) organizations from the start figured out how to raise money for the cause to propagate an entirely different doctrine and set of policies.  This is hardly representative government at work — it’s fascism in process, or socialism — centralized control of an entire country through controlling its FAMILIES and their FINANCES, in part by making up more and more reasons to drain them.

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption Through Common Law Discovery

1997 interview with Marv Bryer.

Reading it would be a great investment of your time then, and still is now.  Don’t mind the ads — read the article!

A related one — not paragraphed, it took me some time (and outside lookups) to “get” how relevant what he’s said here is, particularly about nonprofits being formed in public courthouses (or under public EINs) and how that enables money to be moved through the system (tax evasion, grand larceny (theft), fraud, etc.)…..

http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/bryr0910.htm#UPDATE%20-%2001/31/99.

UPDATE – 01/31/99 

We have just received an interesting request and reply from Ms. Elodie McKee, pursuing the disclosure of the same illegal funds that are prominent in the Tort Claim against the County of Los Angeles filed last September. 

Ms. McKee represents the Los Angeles Women’s Coalitition Against Lawlessness and, by letter, requested an accounting of the Tax Exempt fund known as the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association from the Honorable Judge John Ouderkirk. The registration of any Tax exempt Organization must be made available to the public under U.S.C. Title 26, Section 6104 (e), upon request by an individual. (A protection provided by Statute to protect public funds). Apparently, the Judge has hired an attorney, John J. Collins (a Governor of the State Bar of California) to deny public access to this information. As seen clearly from the notice of the State of California Tax Board, the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association has been designated as a Tax Exempt orgnization and therefore must provide this information to the public. 

The response from Judge Ouderkirk’s attorney, John Collins, shows why attorneys and judges are never placed under oath in the courtroom. They cannot be trusted.

The FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 95-6000927 is registered as a Los Angeles County Federal Tax ID. Again! How can this fund be described as a private organization! This is a huge coverup.

Questions raised:

1. How much does Judge Oudenkirk have to pay John Collins for his services?

2. Has Judge Oudenkirk ruled on cases in favor of John Collins’ clients?

[etc.]

(Comments, 4/2016 during updates): In fact, I’m quoting what’s just below in that link — because it mentions a familiar organization which cites its founding date to 1963 as “Conference of Conciliation Courts.”  I will put it in fine print, but am storing it here as websites have a way of disappearing over time.  I’m amazed that “johnnypumphandle.com” is still up – perhaps because most people complaining about the courts are simply ignoring the message, it’s not considered volatile.  But, you can see that Mr. Bryer was persistent and put through a lot attempting to get the information.  What a shame that there wasn’t a consensus in the early and late 1990s to pick up this ball, run with it, and a wider reception of the undrsetanding of public’s duty to keep the public sector (government finances and funds) accountable, as well as a better comprehension of some of the liabilities of the nonprofit sector.

I have seen SIMILAR behaviors (repeated name changes, or EIN# changes with similar names) in organizations central to handling domestic violence in the family courts.  It seems to be a hallmark.

This is fine print, but you can always copy and zoom it to larger for better reading:

Filed Sep 11, 1998
September 10 1998

TORT CLAIM – AGAINST THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ACCUSED: Tyler McCauley – Assistant Auditor – County of Los Angeles
Frederick Bennett – County Counsel of Los Angeles
Amy L. K. Shek – County Counsel of Los Angeles
Henry Stewart – County Sheriff of Los Angeles
Clarence Markham – County Sheriff of Los Angeles

TIME OF ACCUSATION:
Now – Ongoing

DAMAGES: Amount to be assessed by trial by jury

DESCRIPTION: The ACCUSED are part of an underground of white collar criminals who are involved in the theft of CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and FEDERAL money. The scheme started before their time as an organization known as the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. That organization changed its identity and assumed the name ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS. Using various identity changes, the organization was listed in the LOS ANGELES SUPERVISORS DIRECTORY in 1993 as JUDGES TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING.


The crime ring is an underground Mafia that posed as the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – by using the FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 95-6000927. In recent dramatic announcements, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has informed me that the EIN or FEIN number assigned to the latest version of the organization – the – LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION – is an EIN that was not assigned to the organization. It Is a COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EIN!


I previously attempted to get this discovery – in the lawsuit BRYER vs PENTONEY – but 298 judges and commissioners in LOS ANGELES were disqualified on a ruse orchestrated by JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER – a ring leader of the scheme. JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER’S name is on the signature card of BANK OF AMERICA account listed under the name LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION EIN 95-6000927.

I was forced into the corrupt county – ORANGE COUNTY – where a co-conspirator named JAMES P. GRAY told me he would throw me in jail if I tried to make any more discoveries. FEARING FOR MY LIFE in a county that is FOREIGN to me – I dismissed my case without prejudice and continued to seek discovery away from the strength of ORANGE COUNTY.

On AUGUST 28, 1998,  the LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY arrested my former defendant for the scheme – GREGORY S. PENTONEY -. The underworld known as the LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION – posing for the COUNTY – has attempted to sway the case by offering PENTONEY his job back so they can get GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY for PENTONEY – and get the case dismissed. The JUDGE DALE FISCHER lowered the bail from 500,000 to 300,000 so PENTONEY can get out and confer with his old employer.

THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIES EACH CONSPIRATOR BY NAME AND DEED

TYLER McCAULEY: On October 10, 1995, Tyler McCauley became the fraud investigator for the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – on a complaint Marvin Bryer filed against ALF SCHONBACH and GREGORY PENTONEY. In the secretive investigation – Tyler McCauley discovered that PENTONEY and SCHONBACH were involved in laundering money from the LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION to the – yet another identity fraud – called the JUDGES MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE FUND. All of the money was required by construction of law – to have been deposited into a court fund owned by the PEOPLE of the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

Instead of turning the scheme over to the LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY – Tyler McCauley chose to give a warning to the CLERK OF THE COURT – by telling him to watch out that I was going to sue. I was never copied on the letter. In spite of the warning, the fact is that further damage had already happened. GREGORY S. PENTONEY was plundering the LOS ANGELES COUNTY TREASURY on his own scheme with a lawyer named FENTON. McCauley did not know this fact at the time.

What McCauley knew is that the JUDGES MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE FUND had undergone another identity change and became – in April of 1993 – the LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION. Gregory S. Pentoney had boxes of checks in his possession – and bank statements – showing the organization was laundering checks under that name in all sorts of business schemes with lawyers and psychiatrists who were fixing court cases for profit.

The scheme used EIN 95-6000927. Eventually – to cover his – you know what – Tyler McCauley and the court arranged for a phony audit. According to what I read – the COUNTY BAR selected the auditor on recommendation. The auditor skilfully hid the information about the missing EIN 95-6000927 funds. Instead, to everyone’s shock – millions were found missing in COUNTY CONDEMNATION FUNDS. Pentoney drew the wrath of the COUNTY and his office was raided by a sealed search warrant.

The DISTRICT ATTORNEY swooped up evidence – including files PENTONEY kept on me. The files include billing charges PENTONEY made on me while he falsified “Court” evidence on COURT LETTERHEAD. McCauley feigned that I was to blame for my “ambiguous” request to PENTONEY and that I refused to pay 2,000 dollars more to a government employee who was a fraud – stealing county money and lying in court records

I am holding TYLER McCAULEY directly liable for conspiracy to conceal a compounded crime – and for deliberately allowing the LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION to steal money by using the COUNTY EIN  – 95-6000927.

FREDERICK BENNETT – Bennett is the lying and cheating COUNTY COUNSEL. In my daughter’s case – BENNETT lied and said checks from the COUNTY BAR were gifts to the COURT and the COUNTY. BENNETT would normally be held to the PERJURY standards – but he is the MOUTHPIECE for the underworld that l am accusing. After charging me for his research – BENNETT continued to represent judge KENNETH BLACK – head of the FAMILY COURT SERVICES – when money was laundered by his section of the COUNTY BAR. Then – when I filed my lawsuit – BRYER vs. PENTONEY – EC020659 – BENNETT modified his prior statements and now admitted the LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION and the JUDGES MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE FUND were funds to a PRIVATE organization. That was not what BENNETT said in his testimony to an ORANGE COUNTY JUDGE – THEODORE MILLARD.

FREDERICK BENNETT is nothing more than a PAID COUNTY CROOK. He is in violation of his duty to the PUBLIC and has – through perjury and chicanery – caused damage to me and my family. He did these lies under the jurisdiction as a COUNTY lawyer.

When the CITY OF LOS ANGELES began to investigate the scheme – a city investigator named Luis Lopez was assigned the case. The jurisdiction is LAMC Chapter IV Article 4. Frederick Bennett swayed the investigation by threatening Lopez because BENNETT knew JIMMY HAHN – Lopez’s boss. Lopez was ordered to stop the investigation and shred his crime report. This issue is a major OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. I know about these matters and was in communication with various city officials who I INTEND TO CALL TO THE STAND.

AMY L. K. SHEK – Is – or was – a COUNTY PAID liar – a COUNTY COUNSEL. Ms. Shek defended GREGORY S. PENTONEY in my lawsuit – EC020659 – while she had a private secret of her own money laundering to the same scheme that involved PENTONEY. AMY L. K. SHEK prepared a motion to dismiss my case. She argued that PENTONEY was a government employee with government immunity – pursuant to Gov. Code Section 822.2. What AMY L. K. SHEK FAILED TO DISCLOSE – is that HER CHECKS are laundered into the same scheme. I have seen the checks but am not able to get copies because the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES hired hatchet firm – COLLINS, COLLINS, MUIR and TRAVER – were allowed to STEAL the records – including the checks of AMY L. K. SHEK. COLLINS removed the boxes of evidence from the courthouse finance department – to protect the COUNTY’S interest in the CONCEALMENT of the theft. These checks include money laundered to send judges to COUNTRY CLUBS – to buy jewelry, etc.
[There is more at the above link….]

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption Through Common Law Discovery

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The device I just published from this was running out of power (batteries) as I hit “publish.” remaining section — hey, perhaps even some incomplete sentences and typos above — will be addressed when they are recharged. Maybe.

    Let's Get Honest

    January 24, 2013 at 11:48 am

  2. […] which began ca. 1998 is a little more complex to read than Marv Bryer’s 1997 interview “Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption through Common Law Discovery” of events occurring in Southern California which I just posted, “sticky” status […]

  3. […] basic primer of getting evidence — let alone, of what’s been going on… Which I blogged on Jan. 24, 2013 and have been reporting throughout the history of this blog. When “aliases” […]

  4. […] Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption through Common Law Discovery (1997 Interview) […]

  5. In cases where you’re fascinated in continuously working at your foresight of timing, and understanding the concepts of how to buy and therefore sell carries several at only the suited moment throughout the trend, it’s serious for most people to develop familiar on something phoned MACD chemical analysis. When reading luminous constructed of wax charts each candlestick shapes and sizes viewed living in relation to be able to one the other form many types of patterns base on to your current price multiply and our own proximity were opening up to closing purchase prices. The actual individual plus company accountable for for curbing your the forex marketplace account probably will do specific market become familiar with and analysis on your behalf.

    It would possibly be a good slower solution of growing answers, but yet this means you are really sure and get a very direct respond to and for you will perhaps even be appending to usually the informational storage system for existing and lives forum owners. provides forex profit matrix traders that has excellent job conditions on the the Foreign exchange trading Market. Child’s Convincingly play is not necessarily quite a transacting robot (as you probably originally think).

    Around fact, person of ones key stuff to seem to be for by an top dogs forex investing in course is now ongoing edification. For placing foreign currency trading orders Straighthold Commitment Group, Incorporated. Specific means, amongst other things, that that Forex broker must obtain a sound knowledge from technical investigations and, into particular, wonderful ability into read files.

    The eToro moderators enjoy a fabulous job of all sorting out of the house the varying threads straight into the their categories, but the entire answer that you simply looking to suit might relatively well are hidden in a place whose trophy has nothing to enjoy with out. Problem is way too an opportunity, but the program should constitute a scored risk your corporation take. The rudimentary analysis in order for a the currency market forecast correlates to shopping around at their company’s financial records and news reports to projected stock movement.

    Suppose the huge issue accompanied by this point is which in turn traders might possibly be feeling pretty high quality about their very own current trading status. You think the Australian technique is striving good, thereby you conclude to walk long, obtaining five pacts at just one particular.0665. Really the significantly stocks that person holds of the best particular company, the higher of the company many own.

    the roughly day putting average , nearby fad for line back. Presently is certainly for your corporation to lose when clients take a particular free The forex marketplace selling guide. As those amount from currency forex currency trading continues up to increase, so will all of the effect this debasement supports on the specific economies within the population.

    Own your actual decisions but learn from your flaws. The several program truly allow view to in addition , instant admittance of every bit the functions, regardless associated location as a result of Wi-Fi also known as other Electronic communication (access). After you see, the purchase, during a given period at time provided that you stop to generally conclusion so the apps does far from being meet you are expectations, serious suppliers process returned goods and tax refund the choice price.

    pneurbepixtup

    July 17, 2013 at 11:57 am

    • Which just goes to show that programs to randomly mimic human speech do exist, and apparently have a lot of traffic through hotmail, where a lot of the spam is coming from these days (this one came absent a url).

      Still slower than the human brain at making sense of random variables presented in chaotic form.

      Let's Get Honest

      July 18, 2013 at 8:42 am

  6. […] conflicts of interest are all over the process, and fees to get in on it can and have been easily misdirected into “slush funds,” which has been documented since at least 1999. (See my top “sticky” […]

  7. […] well-labeled (it is Corp, Gov't or Hybrid?), have done enough LOOKups, understand that money is made in the trainings and laundered (and/or lost) through fake, dissolved, or multiple-personality corporate names (you'd […]

  8. In 1985, a black man was charged with a capital murder in a small, conservative farming town named Hanford California. .he was given 2 attorneys, as is customary in a capital murder case. .JOEL BASTA, was the lead, and THOMAS DESANTOS, was co council. ..when they found out that the defendant WILBERT J ODEN, D24334, Lancaster, California. .was friends with a major drug dealer they made him an offer he couldn’t refuse…IF, he comes up with $ 5.000, worth of cocaine. …the deal is as follows. .#1 They will introduce to the judge and P.A., an invalid, unlawful and unconstitutional jury instruction to be presented to the jury as a lesser included offense. ..#2, have mr bastas girlfriend placed on the jury so that she can convince the others to pick the unlawful, invalid and unconstitutional jury instruction, #3, file a motion for a new trail once the judge accepts the verdict. ..long story short, WILBERT J ODEN, got the dope to them, and they did as they promised. ..30 years later, mr oden is still in prison for a crime that literally do not exist under California law, and is unconstitutional under federal law..the attorney BASTA, was disbarred in 2003, for similar misconduct and mr Thomas DeSantos is now a judge in Hanford California. ..for years mr oden has tried to expose them for doing what they did, but California judicial system is corrupt, racist and very selective. ..

    Mathew Williams

    December 12, 2015 at 10:48 pm

    • Sorry, this took a week to approve because I’ve not been on the blog; there have been other pressing priorities. Commenter may want to (or maybe has) present information on a more active blog — I only have 319 followers (more viewers, obviously) and haven’t PUBLISHED a post on here in more than a year. Those posts already published are plenty informative.

      Am still active investigative blogger and on specific issues, off-site, elsewhere, just not publishing here.

      It always helps when presenting your information to provide links, if available, for readers.
      I have no problem with the concept that the judicial system is corrupt and/or racist (and, sexist); the racist part goes along in part with welfare reform practices, which I can comment on. Most murder/dope/drug … criminal procedures … are not my area.

      This is the case you’re talking about?
      People v. Oden (1987)
      [No. F006932. Court of Appeals of California, Fifth Appellate District. August 13, 1987.]
      THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILBERT J. ODEN, Defendant and Appellant
      [Opinion certified for partial publication.]
      (Opinion by Martin, J., with Franson, Acting P. J., and Hamlin, J., concurring.) [193 Cal. App. 3d 1676]

      Appellant, Wilbert Joseph Oden, was ultimately charged by amended information with one count of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), fn. 1 one count of assault with intent to rape (§ 220), and one count of attempted burglary (§§ 459, 460.1, and 664). With regard to the murder, special circumstance allegations were alleged that the murder occurred during the commission of either a rape or burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(iii) and (vii)). Various allegations which could lead to enhancements of the sentence were also alleged to each count.

      The jury returned verdicts of guilty of second degree felony murder and misdemeanor assault, while acquitting appellant of the burglary charge. Appellant was also found to have used a knife while committing the murder and assault, and to have caused great bodily injury during the assault.

      Appellant was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 16 years to life. The court also imposed a $10,000 restitution fine. A timely notice of appeal was filed.

      Facts {{…. (two local witnesses, in the house, hearing the car horn honk and observing a man)….
      MARTIN, J.}}}…

      At about the same time, Officer James Thornsbury was patrolling in the neighborhood when he saw an individual walk away from a car. Officer Thornsbury became suspicious when the individual walked toward a house a considerable length away from the car. After calling for assistance Officer Thornsbury walked over to the car. Inside he found the body of Teresa Torres. Teresa was naked from the waist down. A knife was also found in the car. What appeared to be blood was smeared in various places inside the car.

      Joseph Torres was married to Teresa Torres. During the day on February 25, 1985, Joseph worked out with appellant at a local schoolyard. Torres remembers appellant wearing a black martial arts outfit.

      Later that same evening appellant appeared at the Torres apartment and asked Teresa “Where the action was.” Teresa offered some suggestions and appellant left. Appellant returned with his sister about 10 p.m., which was within a half hour after his last visit. Appellant’s sister asked Teresa if she could drive appellant home to his mother’s house. Stating Teresa was busy, Joseph drove appellant home. After returning home, Joseph retired to the bedroom where he watched television. He last saw his wife somewhere between 11:30 and 12 midnight when he fell asleep.

      Dr. Amand Dollinger, a pathologist, described the various injuries he discovered on Teresa’s body. Teresa suffered numerous wounds from a knife, mostly on her hands and left arm. Dollinger opined these wounds were received as Teresa tried to defend herself from an attack by a knife-wielding assailant. Teresa also had bruises on her face and scratches on her neck. It was Dr. Dollinger’s opinion, however, that Teresa’s death was caused by asphyxiation due to strangulation.

      Officer Bruce Blodgett went to appellant’s mother’s house later in the day on February 26. Officer Blodgett obtained from appellant a black “gi” — a martial arts outfit. The “gi” had what appeared to be blood spots all over it. There were also white shoes with blood spots on one toe. Officer Blodgett arrested appellant at this time.

      The blood stains on appellant’s “gi,” as well as dried blood taken from behind appellant’s ear, matched Teresa’s blood — which was a rare type. Fingerprints taken from window screens that had been removed from the Torres apartment matched those taken from appellant at the time of booking. [193 Cal. App. 3d 1680]

      Defense

      The gist of the defense was that appellant and the victim met for a “date” that night and argued when appellant was unable to get an erection during foreplay. The victim was then accidently killed during the argument.

      Discussion

      I. Did the Trial Court Reversibly Err in Instructing the Jury In the Language of CALJIC No. 8.32?
      [ENDQUOTE from that link…]

      This is a 1995 appeal which talks about the invalid instruction: sounds like his own defense counsel asked for it, though it’d been declared invalid 16 years earlier.

      Wilbert Joseph Oden, Petitioner-appellant, v. B.j. Bunnell, Respondent-appellee
      Date: December 12, 1995
      Citation: 72 F.3d 135

      (some quotations from that link):
      Before GOODWIN and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD** , District Judge.

      MEMORANDUM*

      Defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition. Defendant contends that his murder conviction in state court must be reversed because (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) his conviction violated due process. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm.

      On April 3, 1985, defendant was charged in Kings County (Cal.) Superior Court with first-degree felony murder, assault with intent to commit rape, and attempted burglary. The first-degree felony murder charge was prosecuted as a special circumstances crime, and defendant would have received either the death penalty or a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole had he been convicted. At the end of trial, defense counsel requested that the court instruct the jury that if it could not reach unanimity on the first-degree felony murder charge, it could find defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of second-degree felony murder. The second-degree felony murder instruction rested on the underlying felony of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. Although the prosecutor and the trial judge initially questioned the appropriateness of the instruction, the judge concluded that the instruction was consistent with the defense’s theory of the case and thus granted defense counsel’s request. Unknown to defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial court, an identical instruction had been declared invalid as a matter of law sixteen years earlier. See People v. Ireland, 455 P.2d 153 (1969).1

      On December 17, 1985, defendant was convicted of second-degree felony murder,2 and was subsequently sentenced to sixteen years to life. Defendant argued in a motion for a new trial that because his counsel had requested an instruction that permitted him to be convicted for a crime that does not exist as a matter of law, his conviction should be reversed on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. The trial court found that defense counsel had invited the error when he requested the instruction, and denied the motion. Defendant pursued his ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal to the California Court of Appeals, which also upheld the conviction on the basis of invited error doctrine. Defendant then raised his ineffective assistance claim in a state habeas petition, which was denied.

      The defendant then filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The petition alleged only the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, although the brief in support of the petition raised, for the first time, the claim that defendant’s conviction violated due process. The district court denied the petition.3 Defendant asserts both the ineffective assistance of counsel claim and the due process claim in his appeal to this panel…

      Judge Thomas DeSantos, Kings County Superior Court, Balletopedia
      DeSantos received a bachelor’s degree from Stanford University and a J.D. from the University of Southern California….He was appointed in October 2003 by former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to succeed John G. O’Rourke. DeSantos was automatically re-elected in 2012 and his current term will expire in January 2019.[1]

      This (Oct. 8, 2003, Metropolitan news) says Gray Davis appointed him, and other lawyers, to the bench in 2003:
      DeSantos, 47, is a former president of the Kings County Bar Association. His practice includes family law, juvenile and criminal defense cases, estate planning and general civil litigation. He has served as a judge pro tem. He is chair of the Kings County Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and earned his undergraduate degree at Stanford. His law degree is from USC.

      Interesting — I just found notice (DeSantos, Presiding Judge) that as of (yesterday), a certain Kings County courthouse was being closed due to California Judicial Council budget cuts. Oct. 1 60-day notice of courthouse closure

      Interesting the talk about how broke they are, when I see in September 2013 (right after he was re-elected as an unopposed encumbent, per Balletopedia), it says a new courthouse broke ground:

      http://abclocal.go.com/story?section=news/local&id=9256198Officials break ground on new Kings County courthouse
      Friday, September 20, 2013″

      HANFORD, Calif. — After concerns of over-crowding and security issues, plans are in place to build a new courthouse in Kings County. The $120 million courthouse is being paid for by court fees. It will sit next to the jail and will be under construction by the end of 2013

      Kings County officials and judges from across California gathered to break ground on what will soon be the new site of the Kings County courthouse.

      The environmentally-friendly building will feature 12 courtrooms and be energy efficient. The courthouse will have large windows that let in plenty of the Valley’s sunshine. Kings County presiding judge Thomas Desantos says a new courthouse is what Kings County has needed for a long time. …. “And now this will allow us to close all those and bring them in here and have all the courtrooms under one roof,” Desantos said.

      Appellate Judge and Chair of the Court Facilities Advisory Committee Brad Hill says Kings County– while a small county– can see as big of a caseload as some of the largest counties in the state.

      “Because of the number of prisons in Kings County and the writs that come to the Kings County court, their caseload commensurate to that is much higher than Los Angeles, San Francisco or other big court systems,” Hill said.

      Hanford officials hope the multi-million dollar project- and its construction- bring much needed revenue and jobs to the city.

      “We’re very blessed it’s a good shot in the arm for our local economy and we’re very much looking forward to how it impacts our city in appositive way,” Mayor of Hanford Lou Martinez.”
      (end of that quote) ….

      Let's Get Honest

      December 19, 2015 at 8:43 pm

    • Curious how you found my site and this post….

      (This was second reply in time, may appear above my first one, though). My putting up miscellaneous (search results) info on some of the people mentioned in the comment doesn’t constitute agreeing or disagreeing with it, but are FYI for readers. In the matters of family court, Marv Byer’s findings are critical — possibly unrelated to this topic, though. I”m not sure why the comment on this post….

      “…when they found out that the defendant WILBERT J ODEN, D24334, Lancaster, California. .was friends with a major drug dealer they made him an offer he couldn’t refuse…IF, he comes up with $ 5.000, worth of cocaine. …the deal is as follows …..long story short, WILBERT J ODEN, got the dope to them, and they did as they promised. ..30 years later, mr oden is still in prison for a crime that literally do not exist under California law, and is unconstitutional under federal law..the attorney BASTA, was disbarred in 2003, for similar misconduct.”

      Mr. Basta’s reasons for disbarment, posted at the California State Bar. The comment is interesting, but is hearsay to readers who are not witnesses to the events, and don’t have other supporting links. My question is, if Oden actually killed Teresa Torres or not (see my other reply) and expected exchange of cocaine with defense attorneys was a good deal somehow, and is now complaining that this bribe (under pressure of murder charges) didn’t work. Recommendation, not to befriend dope dealers where possible. Is no one on the outside able to confirm said payoff?

      Anyhow…

      I looked up Joel Basta at California Bar. I have NEVER seen a record like this (and I do look up members from time to time). Unbelievable — just take a look yourself (scroll all the way down). Note “Ineligible to practice law” could come from a number of reasons, but “Disbarred” (since 2003) pretty strong terms. Look at the Disciplinary record.

      Joel Markus Basta – #68148
      Current Status: Disbarred
      This member is prohibited from practicing law in California by order of the California Supreme Court.
      See below for more details

      Effective Date Description Case Number Resulting Status
      Disciplinary and Related Actions

      Overview of the attorney discipline system.

      8/1/2003 Disbarment 02-N-12415 Disbarred
      2/14/2003 Ordered inactive 02-N-12415 Not Eligible To Practice Law
      1/31/2003 Ordered inactive 01-O-03156 Not Eligible To Practice Law
      1/31/2003 Ordered inactive 01-O-02582 Not Eligible To Practice Law
      10/25/2002 Ordered inactive 02-N-12415 Not Eligible To Practice Law
      1/10/2002 Discipline w/actual suspension 00-O-11887 Not Eligible To Practice Law
      1/16/1998 Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 97-O-12742
      2/12/1993 Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 88-O-12692 Not Eligible To Practice Law
      1/3/1992 Discipline w/actual suspension 88-O-12692 Not Eligible To Practice Law
      7/7/1986 Discipline, probation; no actual susp.
      2/7/1984 Notice of Disc Charges Filed in SBCt

      Three entries in California Journal re: what was going on, note the disclaimer about these summaries — not official records:

      California Bar Journal Discipline Summaries

      Summaries from the California Bar Journal are based on discipline orders but are not the official records. Not all discipline actions have associated CBJ summaries. Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.

      August 1, 2003

      JOEL MARKUS BASTA [#68148], 57, of Coronado was disbarred Aug. 1, 2003, and was ordered to comply with rule 955.

      Basta did not comply with rule 955, as ordered by a 2001 discipline. He did not participate in the disbarment proceeding, and his default was entered.
      Basta has a record of six disciplines, beginning in 1986. His misconduct has included failure to deposit client funds in a trust account, promptly pay out client funds, perform legal services competently, communicate with clients or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. He also was convicted of driving under the influence in 1989 and he violated the terms of his disciplinary probation.
      January 10, 2001

      JOEL MARKUS BASTA [68148], 55, of Coronado was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on four years of probation with a two-year actual suspension and was ordered to make restitution, prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Jan. 10, 2002. Basta stipulated to four counts of misconduct in a personal injury case, which he was handling on a contingency fee basis. He settled the matter for $7,501 and deposited the settlement check in a non-trust account without notifying the client. He took his fee of $2,500 and was required to maintain the remainder in trust. Four months later, when the client asked Basta if he had received the settlement, he said he would check and call her the next day. He did not. Three months later, when the client called again, he admitted he had received the settlement funds and spent them. He could not repay the money because a check from another client, provided to Basta so he could pay that client’s bills, had bounced. He had already paid the bills, causing the balance being held for the personal injury client to drop. Over a seven-month period, Basta paid his client about $4,000 of the $5,000.67 he had misappropriated. He also told the client he would pay her medical bills, but did not do so. Basta stipulated that he failed to deposit client funds in a trust account, promptly notify the client of receipt of client funds or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he committed an act of moral turpitude by misappropriating client funds. Basta has a record of five prior disciplines, including a 1998 stayed suspension for failing to comply with a 1993 probation modification order. In 1992, he was disciplined for failing to perform competently, return unearned fees or keep a client informed, for having a pecuniary interest adverse to his client and for improperly withdrawing from representation. He also was disciplined twice in 1986. In mitigation, he made restitution to the client.

      January 16, 1998

      JOEL MARCUS BASTA [#68148], 51, of Coronado was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on one year of probation with a requirement that he make restitution. The order took effect Jan. 16, 1998.

      Basta was suspended and placed on probation in 1992, but he failed to file quarterly probation reports for several years. Two reports were filed late.
      His conduct did not harm any clients.

      Here’s a 1987 (Appeal) in In RE: Marriage of Nolte, in which the husband (Nolte, represented by Basta) appeals an upward modification of his child support. Not quite sure the relevance, but in this odd (and old) situation, the divorced Noltes each remarried a couple, the Neves, who had been married to each other!

      The marriage [1968, child born 1979] of husband and wife which produced one child was dissolved in 1981. The parties each subsequently remarried. Their new and current spouses were themselves formerly married to each other. Husband is now married to the former Pam Neves (Pam); wife being now married to Carl Neves. Wife received physical custody of the child of the previous Nolte marriage. Pam received custody of the three children of the previous Neves marriage.

      This is a search result (August 2012) on Judge DeSantos.
      Man Sentenced in Shooting of Mother’s Lover

      Let's Get Honest

      December 19, 2015 at 9:17 pm


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

American Spring

Solidarity. Unity. People.

Family Court Injustice

Mom & Kids Need "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

Legal Schnauzer

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family --and "Conciliation" -- Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

ExposingTheRecord.org

Advocates for Change: Tell us about your JUDGE, ATTORNEY (pretender), or CPS...

Cold,Hard.Fact$

Experts are Nice, but Economic Comprehension is Better. Find and Start Reading Gov't Entity CAFRs!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 376 other followers

%d bloggers like this: