Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
In The Supreme Court of The State of California
SaveHollyw000d.Org and Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning
Respondent in Appeals Court v.
The City of Los Angeles, et alia Appellant in Appeals Court
consolidated in Appellate Court under
Fix the City, Inc. v.
The City of Los Angeles Appellate # B257712
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECEMBER 2014 APPELLATE ORDERS
After Orders by Justice Turner, Second Appellate District, Division 5, Case # B257712 (consolidated)
Superior Court of Los Angeles county Case Number BS138370
The Honorable Allan Goodman
Edward W. Pilot, Esq. A Professional Corporation 9107 Wilshire Boulevard #700 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 310/274-9602 Phone 310/274-7749 Fax [email protected] Appearance Attorney for SaveHollywood.org
Richard MacNaughton, Esq. Attorney at Law 1916 N. Saint Andrews Place Hollywood, CA 90068 323/957-9588 Phone 323/464-7066 Fax [email protected] In pro per
Table of Contents Heading Page
Table of Contents -i-Table of Authorities
I. ISSUES PRESENTED 1
1 Lack of Jurisdiction 1
2. Lack of Due Process 1
II. WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED 2
1. The First Order 2
2. The Second Order 3
3. Orders Without Jurisdiction and Without Due Process are Void 3
III. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY 5
W. DISCUSSION 19
1. Judges and Justices May Not Be Allowed to Act Without Jurisdiction
19
2. Due Process is a Constitutional Right 20
3. An Attorney's Thoughts and Impressions are Absolutely Privileged 21
-i-
Table of Contents, continued
Heading Page
4. An Explanation Why Justice Turner Acted Without Jurisdiction Are Discernable 22
5. Power Corrupts, and Corruption Destroys Institutions 22
V. CEQA AUTHORIZES RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 24
VI. SUMMARY 25
VII. CONCLUSION 27
I. The Unacceptable Remedy 27
2. Proper Remedies With Respect to This Case 27
3. Additional Actions Which Need to Occur Beyond the Scope of this Particular Litigation 28
Table of Authorities Authority Page
Cases
BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal. App. 3d 1240, 245 Cal.Rptr. 682 22
Flatt v Superior (Daniels) (1994) 9 Ca1.4th 275 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 26
Rumac v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810 21
Scott v. McNeal 154 U. S. 34, 154 U. S. 46 (1893) 19, 23
Other Authorities
Cal. Const. Art. VI, § 10 18
Code of Civil Procedure, § 128.7 14
Code of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5 25
Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-310(C)
8-10, 12-14, 20, 23
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.500
1
Declaration of Independence 1776
23
January 31, 2015 LA Times, U.S. Judges See 'Epidemic' of Prosecutorial Misconduct in State, 26
-iii-
Table of Authorities, continued
Authority Page
The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes 1651 24
Lord Dalberg-Acton, April 1887 letter to Mandell Creighton 22
-iv-
PETITION FOR REVIEW
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.500, Save-
Hollywood.org, aka People for Livable Communities, an unincor-
porated association [SaveHywd] and its Attorney Richard Mac
Naughton [Attorney MacNaughton] respectfully Petition for
Review of the December 26, 2014 orders of the Second Appellate
District, Division Five.
I. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Lack of Jurisdiction
May the appellate court make orders on matters over which
it has no jurisdiction?
2. Lack of Due Process
May the appellate court determine a material issue without
providing Due Process?
/1/
Page 1 of 29
II. WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED
On December 26, 2014, Paul Turner, presiding justice
Division 5 of the Second Appellate District, issued two orders. The
first order was without jurisdiction, without Due Process and
without a record. The second order was fatally tainted to the extent
it was based upon the void first order. The Supreme Court may not
condone a Justice's acting with purposeful lack of jurisdiction.
1. The First Order
The first order removed SaveHywd's attorney, Richard Mac
Naughton, as its attorney. The order stated in its entirety:
The court finds the law firm of Angel Law is the only firm authorized to represent plaintiff, SaveHolly-wood.Org. Mr. MacNaughton is to file no further papers as counsel for Save Hollywood.Org. December 26, 2014 Order re representation copy attached
This order also operated to remove SaveHywd from its own
litigation. Angel Law [Frank Angel] represents a non-party who is
masquerading as SaveHywd.
///
Page 2 of 29
2. The Second Order
On November 12, 2014 in this appeals court, Attorney Mac
Naughton had made a formal motion for his two clients, SaveHywd
and Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning [HELP] to be
Dismissed from the appeal. On December 26, 2014, Justice Turner
ruled on that motion, dismissing HELP but not dismissing Save-
Hywd on the grounds that Attorney MacNaughton was not
SaveHywd' s attorney, and thus, his motion was inoperable as to
SaveHywd.
The dismissal motion by plaintiff, Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning is granted. The dismissal motion of plaintiff, Save Hollywood.Org, filed by Richard S. MacNaughton is denied. Attorney MacNaughton has no authority to file such a motion on behalf of Save Hollywood.Org. No costs in favor of any party are awarded as to Hollywoodians Encourag-ing Logical Planning. December 26, 2014 Orders re: Dismissals copy attached
Because the denial of the Motion to Dismiss SaveHywd was
based solely upon the void order removing Attorney MacNaughton,
the denial of the Motion to Dismiss SaveHywd was improper.
Page 3 of 29
One should note that the trial court judge, The Honorable
Allan Goodman, is now sitting by assignment in Division 5 and his
presence in Division 5 gives rise to conflict which merits discus-
sion of a significant appearance of impropriety. Not only was Judge
Goodman the trial court judge, but Justice Turner's orders were
more likely than not designed to cover-up Judge Goodman's con-
doning Frank Angel's serious ethical violations. The cover-up
resulted in Frank Angel's obtaining Two Hundred Fifty Thousand
Dollars [$250,000.00] in attorney fees to which he was not entitled.
3. Orders Without Jurisdiction and Without Due Process are Void
Three related cases from the trial court have been con-
solidated under one case number in the appellate court. The three
cases are:
(1) Fix The City, Inc. v The City of Los Angeles, et alia
LASC # BS138580 [Fix The City]
(2) La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Association of
Hollywood v. The City of Los Angeles, et alia LASC # BS 138369
[La Mirada]
(3) SaveHywd & HELP v The City of Los Angeles, LASC #
BS 138370 [SaveHywd]
Page 4 of 29
The three related cases are consolidated on appeal under case
number B257712 and they came to the appellate court when The
City appealed Judge Allan Goodman's I post judgment order gran-
ting La Mirada's motion concerning the need for the Hollywood
Community Plan to monitor infrastructure.
As the appellate court docket shows, no one had cross-
appealed to the Second District on the issue of who was the correct
party or who was the correct attorney in SaveHywd.
As the appellate court docket shows, no one had made any
motion in the appellate court to determine who was the correct
party or who was the correct attorney in SaveHywd.
Justice Turner had no jurisdiction to determine this matter.
III. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
Due to the lack of jurisdiction and lack of Due Process, there
is no record to cite except twice to The City's Appendix.
The three related cases were assigned to Judge Goodman, Department P, in Autumn 2012 and remained with Judge Goodman until he was placed on temporary assignment to the Second Appellate Dis-trict, Division 5 in October 2014.
Page 5 of 29
1 December 2011
SaveHywd is formed and in early 2012, its governing body,
The legal Committee, is formed.
2. 7-18-2012
SaveHywd retains Attorney MacNaughton who files the
CEQA Petition for SaveHywd and HELP. AA-0001 - 29
3. 8-25-2012
SaveHywd retains Frank Angel to provide supplemental
CEQA advice to Attorney MacNaughton.
4. 8-29-2012
A corporation [The Corp] is formed to be a 501(c)(3)
corporation to raise funds. Care is taken to maintain the
distinction between SaveHywd and The Corp.
5. 11-1-2012
Due to Attorney MacNaughton's cancer and other medical
conditions, SaveHywd authorizes Frank Angel to appear in
Court, but Attorney MacNaughton remains Lead Attorney.
///
Page 6 of 29
6. 9-19-2013
On or about this date, Frank Angel wants to become lead
attorney, but SaveHywd's Legal Committee rejects Frank
Angel's suggestion.
7. 9-20-2013
On or about this date, Frank Angel goes to The Corp in order
to have it make him lead attorney.
8. September 2013
SaveHywd objects orally and in writing to Frank Angel's
providing any legal advice to The Corp as his contract is with
SaveHywd. By this time, SaveHywd has discovered that
Frank Angel and The Corp do not accept the main premise of
SaveHywd's litigation, i.e., The City needs to study a CEQA
alternative consistent with Hollywood's 20 year population
decline.
9. September 2013
. Frank Angel disregards the express instructions of SaveHywd
for him not to file any papers with the trial court.
///
Page 7 of 29
10. September, October, November, December 2013
Attorney MacNaughton repeatedly explains to The Corp and
Frank Angel that The Corp is not the petitioner and that The
Corp never superseded SaveHywd and that Attorney Mac
Naughton's contract is with SaveHywd and not with The
Corp.
11. 9-29-2013
Over SaveHywd's objections, Frank Angel enters into a
contract with The Corp while still under contract to Save-
Hywd.
12. October 2013
Frank Angel has The Corp remove Attorney MacNaughton as
its lead attorney and The Corp orders Attorney MacNaughton
to follow only the directions of Frank Angel.
13. 1-5-2014
Frank Angel has The Corp fire Attorney MacNaughton.
14. 1-16-2014
Pretending to represent SaveHywd, Frank Angel files a
motion in Dept P to disqualify Attorney MacNaughton.
Frank Angels' moving and reply papers show that Frank
Page 8 of 29
Angel is asking the court to remove SaveHywd from its own
litigation as well as to disqualify Attorney MacNaughton as
SaveHywd's Attorney.
15. 1-29-2014
Frank Angel files Reply Brief in Dept P admitting that he is
representing The Corp. Frank Angel presents declarations
which state that SaveHywd ceased to exist the day The Corp
was formed, 8-25-2012.
16. 1-31-2013
Judge Goodman sees that Frank Angel is violating California
Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-310(C) and Flatt v
Superior (Daniels) (1994) 9 Ca1.4th 275, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537,
which holds that an attorney who has undertaken dual
representation may not even appear in court representing the
second client over the objections of his first client. Judge
Goodman advises Frank Angel of the steps he needs to take
in order to remove petitioner SaveHywd from its own case.
The change in petitioner would result in The Corp being able
to make Frank Angel its lead attorney. Judge Goodman
continues the Motion to March 7, 2014. When Judge Good-
man had a duty to tell Frank Angel to stop, he told him to
advance.
Page 9 of 29
17. 2-14-2014
SaveHywd terminates Frank Angel's contract due his
violations of Rule 3-310(C) and Flatt and due to his dis-
closing SaveHywd's confidential documents and Attorney
MacNaughton's Attorney Work Product.
18. February 2014
After pretending for months that SaveHywd and its Legal
Committee did not exist after The Corp was formed, Frank
Angel now contradictorily claims that The Corp's Board is
the Legal Committee.
19. 2-20-2014
Frank Angel realizes that he lacks a single fact to support his
claim that The Corp superseded SaveHywd and he submits a
request that the court dismisses his Motion to disqualify
Attorney MacNaughton.
20. 3-3-2014
When the court does not dismiss the Motion, Frank Angel
tells Department P that he was mistaken about The Corp's
superseding SaveHywd. Judge Goodman overlooks Frank
Angel's admission that he has been violating Rule 3-310(C)
and Flatt for months.
Page 10 of 29
21. 3-7-2014
Judge Goodman holds a hearing on SaveHywd's motion for
the court to order Frank Angel to cease filing documents as
SaveHywd fired Frank Angel on February 14, 2014 due to his
months of Flatt violations. Judge Goodman ridicules
Attorney MacNaughton when he complains that Frank Angel
has been disclosing to the court and opposing party Save-
Hywd's confidential papers and Attorney MacNaughton's
absolutely privileged thoughts and impressions of Judge
Goodman.
22. 3-25-2014
Judge Goodman denies SaveHywd's Motion to have Frank
Angel cease to file papers in the case and he denies it "with
prejudice" which prevents SaveHywd from bringing up the
on-going violations of Rule 3-310(C) and Flatt. Judge
Goodman's ruling operates as a cover-up of Frank Angel's
wrongdoing and allows Frank Angel to continue with his
ethical transgressions.
23. 3-27-2014
Judge Goodman signs an order allowing Frank Angel to
submit his attorney fee bills to Respondent City notwith-
standing The Flatt case which says that this type of violation
Page 11 of 29
of the attorney's duty of loyalty automatically disqualifies
him and the errant lawyer may not collect attorney fees.
24. 6-12-2014
On or around June 12, 2014, The City pays Frank Angel
$250,000.00 for attorney fees. Judge Goodman's cover-up of
Frank Angel's misconduct leaves The City no option but to
pay the $250,000.00.
25. 6-20-2014
Judge Goodman holds a hearing on La Mirada's motion that
the Hollywood Community Plan must contain a Monitoring
element. Savellywd and HELP played no role in this motion.
26. 7-7-2014
In the trial court, Dept P, Attorney MacNaughton files a
motion, seeking an order from Judge Goodman that the City
needs to issue a CEQA Notice of Preparation [NOP] for the
Draft Environment Impact Report [DEIR]. The hearing date
was September 18, 2014.
27. 7-14-2014
Judge Goodman sustains La Mirada's motion.
Page 12 of 29
28. 7-23-2014
The City appeals from Judge Goodman's 7-14-2014 Order
and adds SaveHywd and HELP to its appeal. AA-0881-887
29. 9-18-2014
In Department P, Frank Angel objects to Attorney Mac
Naughton's acting on behalf of SaveHywd on the grounds
that the court had removed Attorney MacNaughton by its
March 25, 2014 order.
30. 9-18-2014
Judge Goodman puts on the record his understanding of the
situation, to wit, Frank Angel represents The Corp, which has
been trying to replace SaveHywd in this litigation, and that
Attorney MacNaughton represents only SaveHywd and he
does not represent The Corp. Judge Goodman starts to dis-
qualify Attorney MacNaughton under the belief that Frank
Angel had somehow managed to supplant SaveHywd with
The Corp. Judge Goodman's statements show that he clearly
understands that Frank Angel has been violating Rule 3-
310(C) and Flatt's duty of loyalty.
Attorney MacNaughton objects to his imminent disqualifi-
Page 13 of 29
cation on the grounds of lack of due process, and Judge
Goodman continues the hearing until September 24, 2014.
31. 9-24-2014
Judge Goodman discovers that The Corp has not replaced
SaveHywd and that there is no basis to remove Attorney
MacNaughton or to remove SaveHywd from its own litiga-
tion in favor of Frank Angel's client, The Corp. Despite the
fact that by his own words on September 18, 2014, Frank
Angel is in flagrant violation of Flatt, Judge Goodman again
allows Frank Angel to continue his breach of Rule 3-310(C)
and Flatt's duty of loyalty causing harm to SaveHywd.
32. 10-1-2014
The appellate court consolidates the three related cases under
the lowest case number, Fix The City, with the appellate #
B257712.
33. 11-12-14
In Division 5 Attorney MacNaughton files a motion for Save-
Hywd and HELP to be dismissed from the appeals as they are
not proper Respondents.
///
Page 14 of 29
34. 11-20-14
The City files its response brief in opposition to SaveHywd's
and HELP's motion to be dismissed.
Frank Angel files no opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.
Thus, there was no need for Justice Turner's order removing
Attorney MacNaughton. This fact is seen from the docket
itself. As explained below, if Justice Turner had dismissed
SaveHywd, it would have been free to make a trial court
record about Judge Goodman's prior cover-up of Frank
Angel's ethical breaches.
35. 12-8-2014
In the trial court Dept G, before Judge Torriobio, Frank Angel
files a Code of Civil Procedure, § 128.7 Motion against
Attorney MacNaughton seeking $27,600.00 on the grounds
that Attorney MacNaughton is not SaveHywd's attorney.
This motion allows Attorney MacNaughton to bring to the
trial court's attention Judge Good-man's continual cover-up
of Frank Angel's persistent violation of Rule 3-310(C) and
Flatt 's duty of loyalty as well as Judge Goodman's ridiculing
Attorney MacNaughton for objecting to Frank Angel's dis-
closure of SaveHywd's confidential documents including
Attorney MacNaughton's assessment of Judge Goodman.
Page 15 of 29
the trial court's attention the fact that Judge Goodman clearly
understood that he was covering up Frank Angel's breach of
loyalty which allowed Frank Angel to obtain $250,000.00 in
attorney fees to which Frank Angel was not entitled.
36. 12-18-14
In the appeals court, Frank Angel's response brief to The
City's opening brief requests that SaveHywd be dismissed
from the appeal on the exact same grounds as Attorney
MacNaughton's Motion had sought dismissal.
37. 12-19-14
Justice Turner orders plaintiff SaveHywd to send directly to
him declarations identifying who it wishes to be its attorney.
Justice Turner does not make a motion as to this issue. Copy
attached
38. 12-22-14
Division 5 advises SaveHywd that Justice Turner only wants
a declaration directly from SaveHywd without any exhibits
and its attorney is to file nothing. Division 5 states that if two
attorneys are identified, then Justice Turner will ask for more
information. Kruse 12-30-14 Decl. Attached
Page 16 of 29
39. 12-22-14
SaveHywd files a two page declaration with no exhibits, and
Attorney MacNaughton follows the court's instructions and
files nothing. Justice Turner accepts SveHywd's two page
declaration. Kruse 12-30-14 Decl. Attached
40. 12-23-14
Frank Angel files an attorney statement, four declarations,
and over 60 pages of exhibits. Justice Turner accepts these
documents.
41. 12-26-14
Justice Turner rules, with no explanation, that Attorney
MacNaughton is not SaveHywd's attorney and that Frank
Angel is its attorney. Justice Turner makes his order before
SaveHywd sees the papers which Frank Angel had submitted
and before SaveHywd has any idea that Justice Turner would
be issuing any ruling.
This order, which had neither jurisdiction nor due process,
covers up Judge Goodman's prior cover-up by making
certain there is no record. By removing Attorney Mac
Naughton, Justice Turner precludes his making any new
motion on behalf of his client SaveHywd.
Page 17 of 29
42. 12-31-14
Following Justice Turner's December 19th order, SaveHywd
files Objections to the December 26th order removing
Attorney MacNaughton and its being removed from its own
litigation. Face sheet attached
43. 12-31-14
Justice Turner rejects the filing as SaveHywd submitted it in
its own name on the grounds that now SaveHywd may not
communicate directly with him. Copy attached
44. 1-8-15
SaveHywd's appearance attorney Edward W. Pilot, Esq. files
the Objections/Appeal and seeks a Writ of Supersedeas in
order to stay the December 26, 2014 order, removing
Attorney MacNaughton. Face sheets attached
45. 1-8-15
Justice Turner denies the Stay without mention of the Objec-
tions/Appeal. Copy attached
46. 1-16-15
The three justice panel denies the request for a stay without
mention of the Objections/Appeal. Division 5 appears to
Page 18 of 29
have surreptitiously mis-classified The Objections/Appeal as
a "supporting document" to the Petition for Writ of Super-
sedeas. Copy attached
The denial of the writ allows Frank Angel to bring Justice
Turner's order removing Attorney MacNaughton to Judge
Torribio and to argue that because Justice Turner has
removed Attorney MacNaughton, all that is left to decide is
the amount of the monetary sanctions against Attorney Mac
Naughton under C.C.P., § 128.7.
In brief, there is no appellate court jurisdiction, no Due
Process and no record to support Justice Turner's order removing
Attorney MacNaughton.
IV. DISCUSSION
1. Judges and Justices May Not Act Without Jurisdiction
No concept is more fundamental to the American judicial
system than a court may act if and only if it has jurisdiction.
"No judgment of a court is due process of law, if rendered without jurisdiction in the court, or without notice to the party." Scott v. McNeal,154 U. S. 34, 46, 154 U. S. 46 (1893).
Page 19 of 29
An appellate court gains jurisdiction of an issue either by
having the issue appealed to the appeals court or by a party or the
court itself making a motion to determine the issue. Cal. Const. Art.
VI, § 10
There is no gainsaying that SaveHywd and HELP had not
appealed any order from the trial court.
Nor was any motion made in the appellate court. The
situation in the appeals court is somewhat worse than proceeding
without any motion in that Justice Turner would not allow Save-
Hywd or Attorney MacNaughton to present evidence while it
allowed Frank Angel to submit his own attorney statement and over
60 pages of exhibits.
2. Due Process is a Constitutional Right
Had Justice Turner provided any notice of his intention, then
the appellate court could not have gone down this path. SaveHywd
would have been able to advise the court that it lacked jurisdiction
until someone made a motion.
Engrained in our concept of due process is the requirement of notice. Notice is sometimes essential so that the citizen has the chance to defend charges. Notice is required before property interests are disturbed,
Page 20 of 29
before assessments are made, before penalties are assessed. Notice is required in a myriad of situations where a penalty or forfeiture might be suffered for mere failure to act. Recent cases illustrating the point are Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313; Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U. S. 141; Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U. S. 112. These cases involved only property interests in civil litigation. Lambert v California, (1957) 355 U.S. 225, 228, [78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228]
Due Process is a constitutional right which no court may
ignore.
. . . Many controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the Due Process Clause, but there can be no doubt that, at a minimum, they require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., (1950) 339 U. S. 306, 313
3. An Attorney's Thoughts and Impressions are Absolutely Privileged
California affords the work product protection to any docu-
ment prepared by an attorney in connection with his or her work as
an attorney, regardless of whether litigation is contemplated. Rumac
v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810, 815.
Page 21 of 29
In order not to lose the privilege, attorneys have to object to
unauthorized disclosures. BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior
Court (1988) 199 Cal.App. 3d 1240,1261, 245 Cal.Rptr. 682 When
Attorney MacNaughton did that, Judge Goodman brushed it aside
despite the fact that the case could continue for months or years in
front of Judge Goodman and that it had been disclosed to opposing
counsel.
4. An Explanation Why Justice Turner Acted Without Jurisdiction Is Discernable
The above History and Procedure provide an explanation why
Justice Turner proceeded without jurisdiction. In order to cover-up
Judge Goodman's cover-up of Frank Angel's sustained ethical
violations, Justice Turner could not make a motion. As soon as he
would have made a motion in order to invoke the appellate court
jurisdiction, Due Process would have permitted Attorney Mac
Naughton to make a record in the appellate court revealing Judge
Goodman's prior transgressions.
5. Power Corrupts, and Corruption Destroys Institutions
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Dalberg-Acton, April 1887 letter to Mandell Creighton
Page 22 of 29
The Declaration of Independence rests upon the principle that
all men have certain inalienable rights including Life, Liberty and
the Pursuit of Happiness and that governments are instituted to
protect these inalienable rights. 2
The US Constitution was drafted to "secure the Blessings of
Liberty" and to secure these blessings, the Constitution established
a government of limited powers where the three branches of
government balance each other. Amendments 5 and 14 requires
Due Process and Amendment 14 makes Due Process applicable to
The States ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." US
Constitution 14`" Amendment)
The Sin Qua Non of the judiciary is jurisdiction. Without
jurisdiction any judicial action, decision or opinion is void. Scott
v. McNeal,154 U. S. 34, 46, 154 U. S. 46 (1893)
2
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence 1776
Page 23 of 29
As Lord Acton wrote, men of authority are the ones who need
to be constrained. They have both the passion and the ability to
harm their fellow citizens. In fact, unbridled power results in
despotism and de-legitimizes the entire government. Our Founding
Father knew that the blessings of liberty can only be secured by
limiting authority. The courts are limited by the requirements of
jurisdiction and Due Process.
The Judiciary may do nothing unless it first has jurisdiction,
and after that, the judiciary may only travel down the path of Due
Process. To allow otherwise, discredits the entire government and
moves society back towards the state of nature, which is "solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish, and short." The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes
1651
V. CEQA AUTHORIZES RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
CEQA permits recovery of attorney fees and costs under Code
of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5. In addition to the judicial attacks
which are being made upon SaveHywd and Attorney MacNaughton,
the judicial misconduct has seriously impacted the general public.
Judge Goodman's condoning of Frank Angel's transgressions has
deprived Angelenos of a Notice of Preparation for a new CEQA
Page 24 of 29
environmental impact report for the new Hollywood Community
Plan.
In order to comprehend the harm which has been done to the
public, one needs to understand the complexities of CEQA as
applied to the Hollywood Community Plan. As Justice Turner did
not allow for a record, explaining the harm is far beyond the scope
of this Petition. Rather, Save-Hywd merely states that Angelenos
have to rely on the 1988 Hollywood Community Plan, whose
Commerce Section expired in 2010. 3
The fact that Frank Angel with the assistance of Judge Good-
man has subjected SaveHywd and Attorney MacNaughton to
continual harassment as they fight for a new Hollywood Com-
munity Plan is no reason to deny SaveHywd and Attorney Mac
Naughton their attorney fees and costs.
VI. SUMMARY
Frank Angel's long term breaches of Rule 3-310(C) and ofhis
duty of loyalty to his original client, and his dissemination of his
3
While this thorny CEQA issue is not before this Court at this time, over a billion dollars worth of projects have been cast into this no man's land.
Page 25 of 29
client's confidential papers strike at the foundation of the attorney
client relationship.
Nonetheless, Judge Goodman covered up Frank Angel's
reprehensible actions, thereby allowing him to collect $250,000.00
in attorney fees when he was entitled to no attorney fees under
Flatt. Justice Turner then manipulated the appellate process which
covered up Judge Goodman's prior cover-up. 4
When the three justice panel saw that Justice Turner had acted
without jurisdiction, without Due Process and without a record, they
held fast to the rules of Omerta by ratifying the unethical behavior.
Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen said the judges' questions and tone showed they had lost patience with California courts. "State judges are supposed to refer errant lawyers, including prosecutors, to the state bar for discipline, but they rarely do," Uelmen said. January 31, 2015 LA Times, U.S. Judges See 'Epidemic' of Prosecutorial Miscon-duct in State, by Maura Dolan
4
Interestingly, while Judge Goodman has a claim he was acting with jurisdiction and hence with judicial immunity, Justice Turner's intentionally acting outside the bounds of jurisdiction probably waived judicial immunity for his conduct.
Page 26 of 29
Had Judge Goodman not chosen to cover-up Frank Angel's
errant ways, allowing Frank Angel could collect $250,000.00 in
unearned attorney fees, there would have been no need for this
Petition for Review.
VII. CONCLUSION
SaveHywd and Attorney MacNaughton respectfully request:
1. The Unacceptable Remedy
The remedy is not for this Court to subject SaveHywd and
Attorney MacNaughton to additional expense and mental distress
as it maneuvers to perpetuate the cover-ups by ordering a "re-
hearing" in an appellate court which is so implicated in wrong-
doing.
2. Proper Remedies With Respect to This Case
A. Justice Turner's December 26, 2014 order making
Frank Angel SaveHywd's attorney and removing Attorney Mac
Naughton should be declared null and void as without jurisdiction.
Page 27 of 29
B. Attorney MacNaughton's Motion to Dismiss should be
granted as to SaveHywd in addition to granting it as to HELP.
Remedies A and B can be granted by this Court's looking at
the appellate court's docket. There was neither an appeal nor a
motion on the pivotal issue, and hence, there was no jurisdiction.
C. As this is a CEQA action with Code of Civil Procedure,
§ 1021.5 Attorney fees and costs, SaveHywd and Attorney Mac
Naughton should be awarded attorney fees and costs subject to a
submission of attorney fees and costs incurred since December 19,
2014.
3. Additional Actions Which Need to Occur Beyond the Scope of this Particular Litigation
A. Due to the systemic judicial corruption, the Supreme
Court needs to take additional steps beyond the bounds of this case
in order to institute new procedures where this type of judicial
misconduct is excised from California.
B. The Governor needs to appoint new judges and justices
who are committed, in advance to their appointment, to a judiciary
which has no room for the current Omerta rules under which
judicial corruption thrives.
Page 28 of 29
Dated: February 3, 2015 Edward W. Pilot, Esq. A Professional Corporation Appearance Attorney for SaveHywd and Richard MacNaughton, E . In pro per
By CS".VIA—C
Richard MacNaughton
HCP-1112-PetitionVer16 Word count 4451
Page 29 of 29
List of Attachments To Petition For Review
1. December 26, 2014 Justice Paul Turner's Order Concerning Representation
2. December 26, 2014 Justice Paul Turner's Orders re: Dismissal
3. December 19, 2014 Justice Turner's Order re: Dispute over the Authority to Represent Plaintiff, Savehollywood.org
4. December 31, 2014 face sheet for SaveHywd's Objections to Court's December 26, 2014 Orders removing Richard MacNaughton, Esq. as its Attorney
5. December 31, 2014 Justice Turner's Order Denying Per-mission to File Objections
6. January 8, 2015 Justice Paul Turner's Order on Request for Emergency Stay
7. January 16, 2015 three Justice Panel Order Denying Writ of Supersedeas
8. December 30, 2014 Ziggy Kruse declaration re instructions from Division 5 re December 19, 2014 order
1• 12-26-2014
Order
1• 12-26-2014
Order
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL — SECOND DIST.
DIVISION FIVE
F LE Dec 26, 2014 JOSEPH A. LANE, Clerk
J. DUNN Deputy Clerk
B257712
(Super. Ct. No. BS138580) Los Angeles County
ORDER CONCERNING REPRESNTATION
FIX THE CITY et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Intervenor
The court finds the law firm of Angel Law is the only firm authorized to represent
plaintiff, SaveHollywood.Org. Mr. MacNaughton is to file no further papers as counsel
for SaveHollywood.Org.
Presiding Justice
2• 12-26-2014
Order
2• 12-26-2014
Order
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL — SECOND DIST.
DIVISION FIVE
Dec 26, 2014 JOSEPH A. LANE, Clerk
B257712 J. DUNN Deputy Clerk
(Super. Ct. No. BS138580, Los Angeles County)
ORDERS RE: DISMISSAL
FIX THE CITY et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Intervenor
The dismissal motion by plaintiff, Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning
is granted. The dismissal motion of plaintiff, Save Hollywood.Org, filed by Richard S.
MacNaughton is denied. Mr. MacNaughton has no authority to file such a motion on
behalf of Save Hollywood.Org. No costs in favor of any party are awarded as to
Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning.
Presiding Justice
3: 12-19-2014
Order
3• 12-19-2014
Order
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL — SECOND DIST.
FILE
DIVISION FIVE
Dec 19, 2014 FIX THE CITY et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,
Defendants and Appellants,
HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Intervener.
B257712
JOSEPH A. LANE, Clerk
D. LEE
Deputy Clerk
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS138580 )
ORDER RE: DISPUTE OVER THE AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT PLAINTIFF, SAVEHOLLYWOOD.ORG
A dispute exists as to who represents plaintiff, SAVEHOLLYWOOD.ORG.
Within 5 days of the filing date of this order, plaintiff is file declarations identifying who
it wishes to act as its counsel.
Paul Turner, Presiding Justice
4• 12-31-2014 Face Sheet
4• 12-31-2014 Face Sheet
CLERK '5 OFFICE COURT Of APPEAL SECOND GIST.
RECEIVED
Court of Appeals 20140EC 31 AN11: 50 State of California JOSEPH A. LANE CLERK
Second Appellate District, Division Five
Fix the City, Inc. ) Petitioner and Respondent )
vs. ) City of Los Angeles, etc. )
Respondent and Appellant ) )
) La Mirada )
Petitioner and Respondent ) vs. ) City of Los Angeles, etc. )
Respondent and Appellant ) )
) SaveHollywood.org and Holly- ) woodians Encouraging Logical ) Planning )
Petitioners and Respondents ) )
vs ) City of Los Angeles, etc. )
Respondent and Appellant ) ) Intervenor ) Hollywood Chamber of Commerce) )
B257712 (consolidated with B257714 and B257797
Super. Ct. L.A. County, Nos. BS 138580, BS138370, BS 138369, Honorable Judge Goodman Presiding
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT SAVE-HOLLYWOOD.ORG, PEOPLE FOR LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES, AN UNINCOR-PORATED ASSOCIATION'S OBJECTIONS TO THE COURT'S DECEMBER 26, 2014 ORDERS REMOVING RICHARD Mac NAUGHTON, ESQ. AS ITS ATTORNEY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, DECLARATION OF SIEGLINDE KRUSE
Submitted by The Legal Committee of
Petitioner SaveHollywood.Org, People for Liveable Communities, an unincorporated association 1941 North Oxford Avenue
Hollywood, California 90027 323/388-5553 (tel) 323/464-7066 (fax)
HWOODCA®gmail.com Appearing in Pro Per
5• 12-31-2014
Order
5• 12-31-2014
Order
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL — SECOND DIST.
DIVISION FIVE FILE Dec 31, 2014 JOSEPH A. LANE, Clerk
B257712 D. LEE Deputy Clerk
(Super. Ct. No. BS138580) Los Angeles County
ORDER DENYING PERMISSION TO FILE OBJECTIONS
FIX THE CITY et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Intervenor
The request of SaveHollywood.Org., People For Liveable Communities, to file
objections to this court's December 26, 2014 order is denied. It may appear only through
counsel. (Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council (1993) 505
U.S. 194, 202; Licht v. America West (In re America West Airlines) (9th Cir. 1994) 40
F.3d 1058, 1059; Harrison v. Wahatoyas, LLC (10th Cir. 2001) 253 F.3d 552, 556; see
Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Ca1.3d 724, 730; J W. v.
Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.)
Paul Turner, Presiding Justice
6• 01-08-2015
Order
6• 01-08-2015
Order
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DIST.
Fl E 111"
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DIVISION FIVE Jan 08, 2015 JOSEPH A. LANE, Clerk
Melvin E. Ashmon Deputy Clerk
FIX THE CITY, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Intervenor.
B257712
(Super. Ct. No. BS138580) Los Angeles County
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY STAY
The emergency stay request is denied.
Paul Turner, Presiding Justice
1
7• 01-16-2015
Order
7• 01-16-2015
Order
TURNER, P.J. MOSK, J.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
B257712
(Super. Ct. No. BS138580)
(Allan J. Goodman, Judge)
ORDER
COURT OF APPEAL - SECOND DIST.
IP 11 If4.; D JAN 14 21)15
JOSEPH A. LANE Clout
J. DUNN (*Pay Clerk
FIX THE CITY, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
Defendant and Appellant.
HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Intervenor.
THE COURT:
The court has read and considered applicants SaveHollyywood.org and
Richard MacNaughton's petition for supersedeas or stay order filed January 8,
2015. The petition is denied.
1
8• 12-30-2014
Kruse Declaration re. Instructions from Division 5
8• 12-30-2014
Kruse Declaration re. Instructions from Division 5
DECLARATION OF SIEGLINDE "ZIGGY" KRUSE
I, Sieglinde "Ziggy" Kruse, declare that the following declaration is true of
my own personal knowledge.
1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and I am a resident of the County
of Los Angeles, State of California.
2. On Monday, December 22, 2014, I personally telephoned and spoke
with Deborah Lee, the Clerk of the Court of Appeal, State of California, Second
Appellate District, Division Five.
3. I contacted the Clerk in order to verify some formatting and technical
requirements for Mr. MacNaughton in responding to the December 19, 2014 Order
issued by Justice Turner.
4. I was trying to find out the color of the cover page when responding
to an order, page limits and how to handle exhibits which were not part of there
cord on appeal; many exhibits would be required to respond to the court's order.
5. While I was speaking with Ms. Lee, she informed me that she is very
familiar with the case and that we should "read the Court's order very carefully."
6. Ms. Lee pointed out to me that the court only wanted a short
declaration from the "plaintiff SAVEHOLLYWOOD.ORG" itself and that said
Page 1 of 3
declaration should not be submitted by the Attorney. The signed declaration was
to be filed by the Plaintiff and said declaration did not need any exhibits or many
words. She said that the declaration could be a few sentences with proof of
service and a cover page.
7. I thanked her and immediately informed Mr. MacNaughton about the
conversation.
8. Mr. MacNaughton asked me to call her back to double check in order
to make certain that indeed the client and not the attorney was to respond directly
to Justice Turner and that exhibits were not wanted.
9. I called the Clerk's office and again spoke with Ms. Lee.
10. She reaffirmed that all that was needed to be filed was the signed
declaration by plaintiff SAVEHOLLYWOOD.ORG with the necessary "Under
Penalty of Perjury" clause included as well as the Proof of Service.
11. She also stated that the Court would not accept and perhaps reject any
additional documents accompanying the signed declaration. I told her that the
court would then receive two declarations naming different attorneys. She said that
would be fine; if the Court needed more information it would request it.
12. I immediately informed Mr. MacNaughton about the conversation.
Page 2 of 3
13. Based on the information provided by the Court Clerk, I told Mr.
MacNaughton that she had confirmed that he was to submit nothing and only a
brief declaration directly from SaveHywd would be acceptable. As all members of
SaveHywd's Legal Committee were present in order to finish the memoranda,
exhibits and declarations with an expected submission date late December 23"1 or
early December 24th, we dropped our efforts to make a substantial submission, but
instead we drastically cut down Robert Blue's declaration to conform to the
Court's directions.
14. As a member of SaveHywd's Legal Committee, I electronically filed
the Robert Blue declaration with the Court, and I served it on all parties by e-mail
and by US mail. From the post office, Robert Blue and I then drove downtown to
the Court of Appeals where I hand delivered the original and three (3) copies of
the declaration to the Clerk. Ms. Lee was not present when we hand-delivered the
declaration to the Clerk's Office.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration consisting
of three (3) pages including this signature page is true and correct. Executed on
December, 30, 2014, at Hollywood, California.
t <1-LI turu.
Sieainde "Ziggy" Kruse
Page 3 of 3
Verification of Word Count
The Petition for Review was composed on WordPerfect and
according the WordPerfect's Word Count, the Petition itself has
4,448 words.
February 3, 2015 Richard MacNaughton
Proof of Service By Email and US MAIL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California and I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and I am not a party to this within action. My business address is 1916 North Saint Andrews Place, Hollywood, CA 90068
On February 3, 2015, I served the following documents:
1. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECEMBER 2014 APPELLATE ORDERS
on all interested parties by Mailing via US mail and/or Emailing a true and correct copy as indicated below:
see attached list
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Hollywood, California on February 3, 2015
/- u.c112 Sie Inde Kruse
The Honorable Justice Paul Turner Second Appellate District, Division 5 300 South Spring Street 2nd Floor North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90013
The Honorable John Torribio Los Angeles Superior Court Department G 12720 Norwalk Boulevard Norwalk, CA 900650
The Honorable Judge Allan Goodman Second Appellate District Division 5 300 South Spring Street 2nd Floor North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90013
Michael Bostrom, Esq. Siegmund Shyu, Deputy City Attorney 200North Main Street, 701 City Hall East Los Angeles, California 90012-4131
Edward Klein, Esq. Liner LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503
Robert P. Silverstein, Esq. 215 North Marengo Avenue, 3 rd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101-1504
Beverly Grossman Palmer STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90024
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Telephone: (213) 978-8231, 213/978-8106 Facsimile: (213) 978-8090
E-mail: [email protected]
Email: [email protected] Phone: 626/449-4200 Facsimile No.: (626) 449-4205
E-mail: bpalmer strumwooch.com Telephone: (310) 576-1233 Facsimile: (310) 319-0156
Angel Law
Attorneys for Savehollywoodorg, a California Corporation Frank P. Angel, Esq. Email: [email protected] Jessica Cheng, Esq. Email: [email protected] 2601 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 205 Santa Monica, CA 90405