Motion to Quash Corrupt Settlement by Judge Robert Leslie Hess -Hess 03-20-14 Corruption at Stanley Mosk Court Where Judges Sell Their Decisions for a Purchase and Predictive Verdict!

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

O.S.C. & COMPLAINT TO QUASH SETTLEMENT

DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTS & MURDER

James Blume, USMC Honorable et al 1242 3/4 N. Alexandria Avenue L.A, Ca, 90029-1404 (Respondents Stealing Mail) FILE UPON DEMAND (323) 663-1397 (Messages) (Allowed by the Courts) Please Respond in Writing PER THE CONSTITUTION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT



James Blume, USMC Honorable et al

Plaintiff, Complaintant

Vs.

Kathy Watt, et al

Defendants

Jury Trial Demanded

ADA DEMAND FOR COURT APPOINTED

DESIGNEE OR ADVOCATE

AND DOES 1-50 Whistle Blower Complaint

_____________________________________

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Case No.: BC0453664, BC470365, Other Related Cases BD317479 / B168653, D.A. 456083-0910 A / 02FL000867, 08U16492, 10U02548/ BV028409, BC464832, 720735, BC473026, 11U03997, BC464831, BC485710. 04CC12138, 12D001267, BC470365, BC477065, 8:12-bk-16255-CB, 8:12-bk-18590-CB, 274072, GC042105, 12D001267, 08D003897, 03CC05038 DDS720735, 03CC05038, 30-2012-00566104-CU-CR-CJC, ALONG WITH (CONSOLIDATION) & APPEALS CASES. A. INTRODUCTION: Judicial Facilitation to Violate Rights & to Sell Decisions B. FORUM SHOPPING FOR VEXATIOUS LITIGANT JUDGE, JUDGE HESS. C. ATTITUDE OF THE COURTS IN CALIFORNIA/FILER'S BILL OF RIGHTS (with F.B.R. Form, Checklist and Immediate Justice Upon Criminal Acts). 1. Stealing from the Dead. 2. Res Adujudicata/Collateral Estoppel begins / In Limine in Cases BD317479# & 02FL000867#. 3. History of Court Cases that Testify to Criminal & Illegal Acts of Judicial Scams. 4. LAHD Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over the Rental Units in the Estate of M. Blume. 5. Creating Fake Court Cases & Criminal Acts to Steal From the Dead. 6. Create Fake Court Cases & Criminal Acts to Make People in Pro Per Vexatious Litigants and Not to be Heard by the Courts. 7. FAKE COURT CASES BC470365# et al 8. Vexatious Litigant Scam & 4 Part Test.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

9. Forum Shopping for a Vexatious Litigant Judge & the Courts Fit the Vexatious Litigant Behavior & Criteria. 10. Penal Code 837, a Private Person's Arrests for Criminal Acts by Judges violating the Constitution of the United States 11. Immediate Action of Relief. Time: 8:00 am Date: MARCH 20, 2014 Dept: 52 / JUDGE: Hess et al

A. INTRODUCTION: JUDICIAL FACILITATION TO VIOLATE RIGHTS TO

SELL DECISIONS: TO ALL THE COURT(S) STATE, FEDERAL, TO ALL INTERESTED

PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; ALSO TO ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OR

HEARINGS IN CALIFORNIA AND ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: PLEASE TAKE

JUDICIAL NOTICE by law under CCP 451 - 453.... of all Evidence presented in this

Affidavit, Claim, Formal Complaint, and my series of Charges are true because Evidence does

NOT Lie, People do! Plaintiffs in all of our Court Cases listed in this Court Document is Not an

Attorney, but per the Constitution would like a Court Trial with a Jury of my peers. But it is always

denied due to Judicial Prejudice, Judicial Discrimination, and Judicial Racism against the poor,

colored, uneducated, and the Disabled People of California to get a Purchased and Predictive

Decision. This is why The People want a Filer's Bill of Rights designed with a checklist (form) so

Courts cannot tamper with our evidence and allow the Courts in California to stop the Selling of

Decisions from the Bench to receive a Judicial Bribe using Facilitation!

This Filer's Bill of Rights is designed with a checklist (form) so the Courts cannot tamper with

the evidence to steer and guide cases to a predetermine outcome, force Judges to rule, justification for

the Judge's Ruling, and accountability after each Court Appearance of what was construed for Justice.

This checklist would immediately stop a Judicial Sham and Judicial Scam to sell decisions and stop

violating our rights by criminal acts perpetrated in our own courts by criminal acts. When a violation

in the checklist occurs, The People can contact an agency, Supervising Agency over the Courts to

cease criminal activities in Court immediately. The error would be fixed immediately and the court

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




case can continue with another Judge and stop unnecessary Appeals and the cost of re-trying cases.

The new Judge can review the Filer's Bill of Rights form/checklist and begin where the case left off

or stopped when the case was purchased for a Judicial Bribe. If a Judge is constantly taken to the

Supervising Agency, it will note the Corruption of this Judge. When Plaintiffs inform or confront

agencies of criminal violations, such as, Police Departments, District Attorney's Office, LAHD,

Courts, etc., nothing is done even though Plaintiffs are giving these agencies evidence of Criminal

Activities perpetrated and allowed is court for a Purchased Decision. For proof of these Criminal

Judicial Acts... Case Law, Stare Decisis, Rule of Law, along with the state's Sentencing Guidelines

are NOT followed by law!

As you read this, this is the problem the new Court Scam & Sham. It is a simple eviction

case that goes year after year, court case after court case and Judge after Judge to steal property from

the dead the Estate of Mine M. Blume. The vicious cycle is the Courts et. al. of California are

stealing property, rental property illegally and making owners/estates go bankrupt and forced to sell.

The problem is a Judicial Conspiracy between the Courts that Sell Decisions to renters with felony

records and are not on the rental agreement. The renters do not pay rent, destroy the Estate, change

the locks on the rental units and refuse to let management have access to the units. The renters

contact LAHD who has no jurisdiction according to (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7

of Title 1 of the Government Code is 7060. (a) No public entity, as defined in Section 811.2. The Estate

of Mine M. Blume has 3 units or less on one parcel of land, which this Government Code states that

LAHD has no jurisdiction, should not be collecting rental income and stealing it with excessive fines

and bails violating our 8th

Amendment Rights. LAHD is working illegally with the Courts. LAHD

sells decisions by allowing renters who are not paying rent to have access to their courts. This is

Judicial Facilitation. The renters not paying rent to LAHD or the Estate of Mine. LAHD refuses to

give Blume et. al. funds from the REAP account to fix the Estate. But later overturns their judgment

and gives it to our property management company, who is working in concert with LAHD and split

the $9,000.00 for repairs to the estate with LAHD. Why? Because LAHD has a history of stealing

money with excessive fines and bails. LAHD treats 3 units on one parcel of land like a large business

apartment complexes. I believe this is why (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1

of the Government Code is 7060. (a) No public entity, as defined in Section 811.2. was created.

However even when finding the Rule, Code, Laws, the courts ignore them. Year after year, court

case after court case and Judge after Judge, the Courts et. al., agencies, LAHD, the renters make

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




money off the Estate of Mine M. Blume. The renters are allowed to remain in the rental units of the

Estate of Mine M. Blume with a forced agreement by the Courts and continue the same criminal

behavior. This is Judicial Facilitation and Selling Decision on the bench by the Courts.

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is the governing body of the United States Courts

for the Ninth Circuit. The councils statutory mission is to support the effective and expeditious

administration of justice and the safeguarding of fairness in the administration of the courts. It has

statutory authority to make all necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious

administration of justice within its circuit, [28 U.S.C. 332(d)(1)]. But this is NEVER done or

allowed due to Judicial Corruption. For proof, I even criminally arrested the Court under Penal Code

837, a Private Person's Arrest or aka a Citizens Arrest of all the Judges involve in Selling

Decisions, and not one of the several Judges Stepped Down or Stepped Aside by their Oath of

Office when I Reported the crime to LAPD, Internal Affairs Division! (Exhibit 2#, 1st

paragraph, 2nd

sentence)! For proof, what have the Judges and Courts done to insure safeguarding

of fairness, make effective/appropriate orders for effective and expeditious administration of Justice

per Federal Rule 8 (f)(c)(e) in Court Case BC0453664#, BC470365# & BC485710# or LAHD

REAP Case 274072# when the criminal acts of theft, bribery, conspiracy, and embezzlement

occurred in front of all to see and witness!? Can the Courts make a ruling on what was performed

by law as to Justice to the Plaintiffs Blume et. al? Can the Courts make a ruling of what have the

Judges and Courts done to insure safeguarding of fairness, make effective/appropriate orders for

effective and expeditious administration of Justice per Federal Rule 8 (f)(c)(e) in the Vexatious

Litigant Court Case when one court case does not match (Exhibit 34#) and in number 6. Create

Fake Court Cases & Criminal Acts to Make People Pro Per Vexatious Litigants and Not to be

Heard by the Courts and number 8. Vexatious Litigant Scam & 4 Part Test in this Court

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Document? Can the Court violate CCP 446, 1013a, et al... and continue with the case overlooking

your rights due to extreme prejudice of people in Pro-Per to be sure they lose their cases by judicial

criminal acts perpetrated in a court of law?

The term "substantive due process" (SDP), is commonly used in two ways: first to identify a

particular line of case law, and second to signify a particular attitude toward judicial review under

the Due Process Clause. Was SDP determine Case Law and signify a particular attitude of Justice?

Can the Courts make a ruling on the paragraph to follow the position of the Court? How does 11

court cases listed on a Vexatious Litigant Motion on a simple eviction case that has been in Default 3

years where Judge Hess refuses to rule on the Default and evict these renters with a Criminal

Records, use LAHD and the Courts illegally, committed perjury on their Complaint and not pay rent

and now want to settlement years later, dismiss the case and have an open check (Exhibit 69#) to the

illegal and criminal activities displayed in Court to revive Unjust Rewards using Judicial

Facilitation. This is how the Courts reward renters with a criminal records that bribes the Judge. In

order to have a Settlement doesn't both parties have to be present and agree; instead of using Judicial

Extortion and other criminal acts to steer cases to a predictive outcome?

James Blume et. al. does not agree with the Settlement. Why should I agree in a case where I was

even denied a Jury Trial, an Advocate or Designee as allowed in the my past cases; BUT NOW

WITHELD FOR A JUDICIAL BRIBE; WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE TO RECEIVE A BRIBE!!!

Procedural Due Process[edit] This protection extends to all government proceedings that can

result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation

hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown

criminal trials. The article "Some Kind of Hearing" written by Judge Henry Friendly created a list of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




basic due process rights "that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority."[14]

These rights, which apply equally to Civil Due Process and criminal due process, are:[14]

1. An unbiased tribunal

4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses

10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Yet, this was NOT done by law to any of my court cases. All government proceedings must safeguard

the Civil Rights of Individuals. How was this done when evidence is cancelled (Exhibit 3 & 4#),

destroyed & missing (Exhibit 16, 56 & 57#), received with a Rec'd Court Stamp (Exhibit 5#) and

not an official Court Stamp and failure to recognize laws that and evidence that proves in Legal

Proceeding and Court Cases of ... (274072#) (BC485710#) (BC470365#) that has absolutely no

merit? When evidence is not being ignored, destroyed or altered by the Courts, then it is being

manufactured by the Courts (Exhibit 38, 39 & 40#). Not only do We the People need a Bill or

Filers Bill of Rights, with a Checklist, but somewhere outside the Courts where We the People

can receive unbiased intervention from this Corruption in Courts.

Judge Hess and the Courts of California is biased, there is failure to submitted evidence and

evidence is destroyed and his written finding of facts and reasons for any decision do not meet the

criteria and have no merit. This is a Bold Statement from Plaintiffs, but from the performance of the

Courts it is obvious, evident and apparent (BC453664#). How can Judge Hess in his findings

(Exhibit 34#) with not one Court Case is a match, claims there must be 5 litigation's to the same

person. This does not exist! Therefore cannot be! How does 11 court cases that are all dismissed

by Judges, not heard by trial, jury trial, in default and signed properly and the courts refuse to rule

on a simple eviction court cases that continues for 6 years (Exhibit 34 & 62#)? Because the Courts

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




et al. serve a purpose to Steal Properties and Steal Property and Inheritances from the

Dead(BC466737#) (Exhibit 63#). Can the Courts make a ruling on the illegal activities in this

Vexatious Litigant conviction and the Abuse and Misconduct of the Courts?

B. FORUM SHOPPING FOR VEXATIOUS LITIGANT JUDGE, JUDGE HESS:

So Attorney Campbell went Forum Shopping to find a Corrupt Judge, like Judge Hess. For 3

years, Judge Hess cannot rule on a simple Eviction Case that is Default. Attorney Campbell

Conspires with Judge Hess to make a fake Court Case, not once but several times with several

Courts, agencies, et al. In Court Case LAHD (274072#), Shimabukuro et al.(BC485710#) Watt et al.

(BC470365#) and Vexatious Litigant (BC453664#). The Courts, Campbell, LAHD & Farmers

Insurance conspired with renters who have former criminal records for Drugs to live at the Estate of

Mine M. Blume for free and destroy the Estate to avoid paying rent; BUT TO APPLY

FACILITATION TO STEAL USING THE COURT AS A TOOL OR AN INSTRAMENT TO

COMMIT THIS THEFT. For proof and to confirm the judicial criminal charges, LAHD has no

jurisdiction over a 3 unit parcel on one property which was allowed by the court to seize properties,

rent, and allow Vandalism to illegally place the property in REAP, by the LAHD, for over 20 years

(discussed later in number 4. LAHD Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over the Rental Units in the

Estate of M. Blume. In this court document). Renters are not paying the Estate of Mine M. Blume

therefore should have no access to LAHD, even the renters/Estate of Mine M. Blume is unqualified

for the Jurisdiction LAHD. Farmer Insurance Attorney's are probably given favor by the Courts by

fake or the lack of representation (Exhibit 42#, page 4, line 14 &17) (Exhibit 43#, page 6, line 14

&17)(Exhibit 46#, page 3, line 14 &17). Throughout Veatch Carlson, LLP, Attorneys Rice and

Czajkowskyj from Farmer's Insurance there is an intentional lack of representation, especially when

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Attorney Campbell et al. commits several of Criminal Acts. For proof, Veatch Carlson, LLP wanted

to do our Appeal, this is why representation was withheld, as done in the Castaneda's Case! Exhibit

42#, Exhibit 43# & Exhibit 46# there are several errors where the wrong court case is listed with the

wrong people, plaintiffs, defendants, and on every service list it claims Veatch Carlson, LLP

Attorneys for Defendants, Mary Ann Blume and James L. Blume. However we are also listed as Pro

Per and Attorney Daniel P. Tusa Esq from Early, Maslach & O'Shea are also listed as Attorneys for

Defendants Mary Ann Rodriguez and James L. Blume, yet Early Maslach & O'Shea/Daniel P. Tusa

has never attended Court in LASC with us. Why, if they are our attorneys? Can the Courts

explain why the court hired, allowed, arranged for Veatch Carlson, LLP, Attorneys Rice and

Czajkowskyj from Farmer's Insurance is NOW representing us; and without the required a MC-50,

51, and 52 forms needed by law to allow this legal procedure, as done in the Castaneda's case that set

Precedence or Case Law; BUT NOT DONE IN OUR CASE!? Why, and please explain why the

court decisions contradict each other? (Exhibit 83#)? Why is Daniel P. Tusa Esq from Early,

Maslach & O'Shea & Farmer's Insurance are also listed as Attorneys for Defendants Mary Ann

Rodriguez and James L. Blume and never attended Court? How are we represented by Attorney Tusa

if he never attends court with us and a settlement is reach that we disagree with by criminals and

there Attorneys that Suppressed Evidence of a Tape Recording that the criminals or opposing party

that states that they are going to seize our property? And the court allows this by violating our

rights by not allowing us to present this evidence? For absolute proof, I want to play my Tape

Recorder in court; as I was allowed by law in the past; BUT DENIED FOR A BRIBE!

Civil Due Process[edit] At a basic level, Procedural Due Process is essentially based on the concept

of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due

process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."[15] As construed by the courts, it

includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to

be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the

proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[16] Or, to put it more simply, where

an individual is facing a deprivation of life, liberty, or property, procedural due process mandates that

he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge. Plaintiffs are facing

deprivation of life, liberty and property, procedural due process mandates that Blume et. al. are

entitled to adequate notice on hearing & a neutral Judge, but Blume et al is not given that right

(Exhibit 60#, 34#, 2#, 82#, 83# & 54#). This is when a Civil Case becomes a criminal case and the

... Fruits from the Poisonous Tree Doctrine, which means any part of the Court Trial, Procedural

Law, Due Process the whole court case is tainted and contaminated, and now void. How is Blume, a

former Police Officer et. al. even given notice & a neutral Judge when the courts manufacture

evidence illegally and criminally, suppresses his rights to lose his case to former criminals and

committing judicial theft by bribing the courts? Is this legal? For proof, Judge Hess and other Judges

took a Bribe by Attorney Campbell, because the Brown Act was even violated that's on court

record by Judge Hess! In Court Case BC453664#, Exhibit 13# (a certified copy of the Case

Summary), on page 3 of 4 beginning on 03/24/2011, 04/042011, 04/05/2011 a series of Request to

Enter Default. Each time James Blume, Jose Castaneda et. al. made the modifications and corrected

every error requested by the Court Clerk who gave legal advise, till it was performed correctly or she

refused to file my legal documents which is Judicial Extortion. Can a Court Clerk give legal advice

and then threaten you, that they wont accept your court filings? On May 19, 2011 the Court Clerks

refused to Court Stamp the resubmitted copy. James Blume, Jose Castaneda et. al. mailed the

resubmit date 05/19/2011 (Exhibit 84#). The courts manufactured and manipulated the Case

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Summary illegally to make a document that states resubmit as an Amended Complaint to

release time constraints to make the Default disappear and continue with the trial. For Proof,

almost of James Blume et. al. Court Cases are dropped because we fail to Amend Court Documents

to re-set the Time Constraints for illegal and criminal court documents to be corrected in this judicial

sham and scam (Exhibit 62#, 34#, page 6 of 9 list of court cases). Is it legal for the Courts to

manufacture and manipulate court documents that are written as resubmit and listed on the Case

Summary as Amend Complaint when it is not an Amended Complaint to illegal reset the case by

fraud, lies, and to get a bribe from the Attorneys? Judge Hess sat on this Court Document for 3 years

and knew it was in Default. For proof, how can an Eviction case with no rent being paid; sit in a

court for many years with no rent being collected? Can the Courts explain why it takes 3 years to rule

on a simple eviction case, that's already in Default? When a case is in Default, is this case how did

the court continue to ignore the Civil Rights, Bill of Rights and the Constitution?

Furthermore Corrupt Judge Hess has to continue with the Eviction process in Court Case

BC453664#, because in Exhibit 82#, it is a MC-50# Substitution of Attorney in Pro Per transferred

from James Blume to Mary Ann Blume. In Exhibit 13#, page 2 of 4, this is also documented &

memorialized on 12/31/2012, Substitution of Attorney Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr. So even

if James Blume is a Vexatious Litigant, Court Case BC453664# must be heard by Judge Hess and

Mary Ann Blume. Court Case BC453664# remains in Default. Mary Ann Blume is demanding an

immediate eviction, with past rent with damages done by the renters per their own admissions on my

answering machine!!!

The Supreme Court has formulated a balancing test to determine the rigor with which the

requirements of procedural due process should be applied to a particular deprivation, for the obvious

reason that mandating such requirements in the most expansive way for even the most minor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




deprivations would bring the machinery of government to a halt. The Court set out the test as follows:

"[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three

distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of

an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any,

of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the

function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute

procedural requirement would entail." But this was NEVER DONE, or even allowed as granted by

the law! Why? For proof, the court never justified its own ruling because the Judge knew it was

illegal, and done for a favor and prejudice which is a Bribe, under Penal Code 67 & 68, a

Felony!!

United States of America Amendments to the Constitution; The first ten Amendments are

collectively known as the Bill of Rights. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and

thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by

the Government outside the sanction of law.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the

Clauses however more broadly because these clauses provide four protections: procedural due

process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws,

and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. According to the The Seventh

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: guarantees a Jury Trial. 28 U.S.C. 2402 also requires

that if you are suing the U.S. government, you are entitled to a jury. However, you will only get a

jury if you ask for one in your pleadings. In Exhibit 11#, a certified copy of the Case Summary for

Court Case BC470365#, page 2 of 4 dated 02/01/2012 Answer to Complaint (AND DEMAND FOR

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




JURY TRIAL). How come I was denied a Jury Trial by law? Please Explain! In Exhibit 13#, a

certified copy of the Case Summary for Court Case BC453664#, page 2 of 4 dated 07/08/2011

Demand for a Jury Trial. Again, why didn't I get my Jury Trial by law? This illegal acts to NOT give

me a Jury Trial were done, because the Judge could NOT get his Bribe money if the Jury ruled

against the Judge! Also several of the Court Cases listed in Exhibit 34# (page 6 of 9) James Blume

requested a Jury Trial by law. Yet James Blume et. al. is not given a Jury Trial, which violates our 7th

Amendment Rights. Why come to a court if your rights are always violated!

C. ATTITUDE OF THE COURTS IN CALIFORNIA / FILER'S BILL OF

RIGHTS (F.B.R.) IS DEMANDED

(with F.B.R. Form, Checklist and Immediate Justice Upon Criminal Acts).

(Exhibit 15#, page 4 & 5) (Exhibit 18, page 1#) (Exhibit 2, 16, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 54, 60 & 62#)

The Exhibits above and throughout this court document discuss the Attitude of the Courts from

missing Court Documents, attorneys that quit and return to sabotage your case illegally, Judges that

feel Pro Per litigants should perform as attorneys or better than attorneys, attorneys that use other

Courts as an Appellate Court, Judges who refuse to hear our court cases and simply dismiss the court

case, Judges that become obstruction and obstacles refusing to rule, allow court cases to continue and

refusing court case to move to the Appellate Court, Corrupt Judges that steal and take a bribe, Corrupt

Judges that fail to perform Due Process, Stare Decisis and Procedural Law, etc. etc.

Evidence usually always gets destroyed, lost, or stolen, and the Evidence Is Withheld to violate rights

to a Fair Hearing or Trial for a Judicial Bribe and steer cases to a Predetermine Decision, Verdict,

or Outcome by bias Judges. (Violation of Penal Code 67 & 68, BRIBERY, a Felony) These

are the series of Judicial Tricks & Tactics used, developed, and applied for many years to

manipulate court cases and the misuse of laws in California Courts to automatically to win or to lose

a case illegally, for a Judicial Bribe by Judicially Sabotaging Court Cases in the state of

California. The Courts in California developed a system, Under The Radar, to use a series of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Judicial Criminal Acts to sell or buy courtroom decisions in California for many years by the

Criminal Judicial Tactic of Facilitation! Judicial Facilitation is used, applied, and implemented to

court cases in California to steer or guide cases to a Predictive and Purchased Decision by the

Courts when a Judicial Bribe is paid; or if you are in Pro-Per and discriminated against because

Judges wants ONLY Attorneys he can control. These series of Judicial Criminal Acts or Illegal

Judicial Tactics are usually Targeted and Perpetrated on Self Represented cases or People in Pro-

Per because we are easy Targets for the court and its officers due to extreme judicial prejudice and

extreme judicial discrimination with extraordinary hatred on the poor, colored, uneducated, and

disabled. For absolute proof, nothing is done or performed to effectively correct the problems

under... FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8 (c ) (f) and (e) Constructing

Pleadings: Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice or as substantial justice. But

again it is NEVER done! For Clear Cut Proof, what was done for James Blume et. al. by any court

cases over 10 years? Nothing!!! THIS IS WHY WE NEED A FILER'S BILL OF RIGHTS WITH A

FORM AND CHECKLIST TO CONDUCT PROPER PROCEDURAL LAWS AND TO GET

FAIR & JUST VERDICT, where both parties agree after each step. This way the Courts cannot

conspire to drop, dismiss or not hear court cases. This is due to Judicial Prejudice and Judicial

Retaliation and for speaking out as a former Marine and former Police Officer (Exhibit 1#), laymen,

educators, students for Exposing the Judicial Scams perpetrated on the People of California and to

commit Judicial Fraud, Judicial Retaliation, Judicial Conspiracy, Judicial Terrorism, Judicial

Facilitation and Judicial R.I.C.O.!!! For Proof... requesting a copy of case files below by law Exhibit

34#, Blume v. Watt BC453664, Order on Submitted Matter filed JUN 17 2013 in Los Angeles

Superior Court and a copy of tapes or transcript of the Court's Electronic Recording Monitor per Rule

11#. The Court transcripts are not the official record.

The Electronic Recording Monitor is the Official record [Douglas Smith v. United States District

Court Office Nos. 98-1423, 98-1548] Again, I demand my case Tapes for official Record to prove my

rights were violated. It is evident when one just reviews Exhibit 34#, Blume v. Watt BC453664,

Order on Submitted Matter filed JUN 17 2013 in Los Angeles Superior Court. First of all, on page 2

and 3 of the Court Document is a list of a series of court trials 1 through 11. They are either eviction

cases or related to the eviction cases and nothing is done, which violates my rights. The cases begin

in 2008 and continue today as of 2014 and nothing is done, which is nuts! What was the court doing

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




then; if nothing is done by law! Instead of ruling on these court cases even thought they are in

Default, the Judges receive a bribe. A bribe does not have to be only financial, but can be to seek a

position or keep a position, promotion, favor and to be given favor later. For proof, the cases has

been going on for many years and nothing is done; except to silence the Whistle Blowers. Instead of

ruling on the cases by law and evicting these renters with felony records who lied on the Rental

Application, then falsifying evidence, commit perjury, criminal and illegal acts from renters,

attorneys, agencies and Judges et. al. they silence We the People with Judicial Retaliation, Judicial

Terrorism, Judicial Facilitation, Judicial R.I.C.O. and make We the People Vexatious Litigant

illegally. Not only do the courts not hear We the People, but they do this by enforcing the label of

Vexatious Litigant illegally, and refuse any evidence or written court documents (Exhibit 2, 3, 4, 5,

49, 50, 51#), refuse to be heard and silence We the People. For proof, Vexatious Litigant is

performed at the beginning of a court case. It claims to be heard on 05/15/2013 , the Judgment on

06/17/2013, after the motion Cut-Off date 02/12/2013 (Exhibit 34, 52#). If the Cut-Off Date has

passed; Can the courts explain why after all this time have passed, the court Entertains the

Vexatious Litigant after its own Cut-Off Date it already set by law? Can the court explain and give

immediate ruling on why its done in the middle or end of the Hearing after all this time and money

was wasted unnecessarily violating the court's own Cut-Off Date?? This proves Judicial Prejudice

and Judicial Bribery!

Also Judicial Conspiracy, Judicial Terrorism, Judicial Bullying and Judicial R.I.C.O. occurs when

Farmer Insurance Attorney do nothing to defend us and other agencies such as LAHD that have no

Jurisdiction according to the law which states in (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of

Title 1 of the Government Code is 7060. (a) No public entity, as defined in Section 811.2. LAHD

perform illegal Court Cases by renters not on the rental contract and are not paying rent and Farmer

Insurance Attorney Rice assists the renters, Playa Vista Property Management and LAHD (Exhibit

47 & 48). For proof, James Blume, USMC was in Pro-Per and his Attorney was Mr. Tusa! Can the

Court, Judge Hess appoint his own Attorney, Robert Rice and Cyril Czajkowskyj for James Blume

when he was in Pro-Per and Farmers Insurance Gave me Attorney Tusa!? To verify the truth; there

was no MC-50, 51, or 52 as required by law and case law. (See Castaneda's case; for proof as case

law)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




1. TO STEAL FROM THE DEAD:

Furthermore, when several Judges, Government Agencies, Attorneys, Courthouses, Court Cases, etc.,

work In-Concert to steal from the dead who cannot defend themselves it becomes Judicial

Conspiracy, Judicial Fraud and Judicial RICO. Once Courts and attorneys find a Probate Case,

they become Judicial Bounty Hunters steal and split the assets of the dead person(s) estate and

split it amongst each other (Exhibits 2, 15, 17, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 49, 50, 51, 54 & 63#).

For proof, in Court Case GC031549# & BC466737#: Jose Castaneda's mother, Felicitas

Castaneda, was granted a partial settlement check of $400,000.00 for the death of her son Luis

Castaneda. In Court Case GC031549#, this $400,000.00 is found by Attorney Mercado's placing

check into Mercado's Trust Fund Account. As Jose Castaneda pursues this quest to find the assets of

the dead, Luis Castaneda (his brother) and Felicitas Castaneda (his mother), Jose Castaneda is

Judicially Retaliated against and Judicially Raped of his Constitutional Rights from not having

access to the Courts, being ignored by the Courts, made a Vexatious Litigant by the Court illegally,

made poor and has a one million dollar Judgment against him. PURSUANT TO THE CODE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 1714.10: A CIVIL CONSPIRACY AND PENAL CODE 182, A

Felony, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY FOR FINANCIAL GAIN TO SELL DECISIONS

WHILE VIOLATING THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS... Can the Courts explain why Felicitas

Castaneda's $400,000.00 was found in Attorney Mercado's Trust Fund Account? Can the Courts

explain a million dollar Judgment against Jose Castaneda with no damages presented to the court?

Can the Courts explain the $50K Bond for Security as a Vexatious Litigant in Exhibit 63# page 3 of

7 dated 03/28/2012? Can the Courts explain what and where the assets of the Estate of Felicitas

Castaneda's and why her Estate never made it to a Probate Court when several attorneys are involved

and Millions of dollars are missing when the court ordered the case to Probate, and was never done or

done correctly?

1.(A) THIS PATTERN OF STEALING FROM THE DEAD CONTINUES:

For more proof, there is an all out attack on the Estate of Mine M. Blume, James Blume, Mary

Blume, Jade Rodriguez, Jordan Rodriguez, et al. Furthermore one is guilty by mere association with

James Blume, Jose Castaneda or both. In Exhibit 2# Supervising Judge Buckley has deemed both

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




James Blume and Jose Castaneda as one person that means anyone who knows or who is related to

either would be consider the same person. LAHD (274072#) (BC485710#) (BC453664#)

(BC470365#), Farmers Insurance(BC485710#) (BC453664#) (BC470365#) (274072#), Bankruptcy

(8:12-bk-16255-CB#)(8:12-bk-18590-CB#)(BC485710#) (BC453664#) (BC470365#)

Court, Oswald & Yap (04CC12138#), Veatch Carlson LLP (274072#) (BC485710#) (BC453664#)

(BC470365#), LASC (BC453664#) (BC485710#) (BC470365#) (274072#),

OCSC(08D003897#)(30-2012-00566104-CU-CR-CJC), Lamoureaux Justice (BD317479#)

(08D003897#)(12D001267#)(02FL000867#), Center, Early, Maslach & O'shea (BC485710#)

(BC453664#)(BC470365#)(274072#) Campbell & Farahani (BC485710#) (274072#) (BC453664#)

(BC470365#) Orange County DCSS (BD317419#) (08D003897#) (02FL000867#), Tony

Rackauckas D.A.(BD317479#) (08D003897#) (02FL000867#), Corrons-Hickey &

Hickey(03CC05038#) (04CC12138#), JP Morgan CHASE Bank(08D003897#) (30-2012-00566104-

CU-CR-CJC) Attorney Catherine Grant Wieder (BD317479#) (02FL000867#) . All these Court

Cases will show the Attitude of the Courts,

where the Courts of California are corrupt, prejudice and have a different set of rules and attitude

towards the poor, colored, disabled, etc. The California Courts believe the poor, colored, disabled,

etc., do not belong in the Courts of California, refuse to hear our/We the People Court Cases and

simply dismiss our Court Cases which violate our 8th

Amendment Rights. The Courts of California

refuse to give the poor, colored, disabled, etc. Justice and access to the Constitution of United States.

In these series of Court Cases, James Blume has the same pattern as Jose Castaneda where he is

Judicially Retaliated against and Judicially Raped of his Constitutional Rights from having access to

the Courts, being ignored by the Courts, made a Vexatious Litigant by the Court illegally to silence

them, we are made poor and has several unjust Judgments against us which make no sense. For proof;

review the cases to see who is lying? James Blume receives food stamps, Medi-Cal and General

Relief with huge Judgments against him that he could never catch up creating failure. This violates

his 8th

Amendment Rights to Cruel & Unusual Punishment by sabotaging his Civil Rights and all his

court cases by prejudicial and criminal acts committed in court.

2. Res Adujudicata/Collateral Estoppel begins in Court Case BD317479# &

02FL000867#:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Res Adujudicata/Collateral Estoppel begins in 08/20/2001 in Court Case BD317479# (Exhibit 20#)

and when Judge Schnider Rules on Further Judgment on Reserved Issues on 11/07/2001. By

10/23/2001, Atty. Wieder is already looking at James Blume's inheritance (Exhibit 22#, 3rd

paragraph). Judge Schnider Rules that James Blume will pay $129.00 a month for Child Support.

Atty. Wieder complains to Judge Schnider that the Child Support is not high enough. Judge Schnider

informs Atty Weider to Appeal his Decision and the Jurisdiction of the Court Case remains in LASC .

Instead of Appealing the Court Case per the Judge's Order, Atty Weider uses Lamoreaux Justice

Center in Orange County as an Appeal Court. Atty Weider illegally tries the same case in another

County, Orange County, when Kathy Evans and Sara Blume is still living in Los Angeles County,

which is a form of Double Jeopardy. For proof (Exhibit 38#), the Visitation on page 8 of 12, item 4

(c) at a specific location 10210 Bryson Ave South Gate CA. This address is in Los Angeles County,

not in Orange County and therefore illegal. Furthermore in Exhibit 41# (4 pages) copies of Sara

Blume's cum that documents information that Sara Blume attends school in LAUSD, resides at 10210

Bryson Ave. South Gate, CA 90280 and a copy of a gas & utility bill for verification. So if both

parties live in L.A. County, why was the court case in Orange County at Lamoreaux Justice Center?

In Exhibit 23#, Attorney Wieder is Forum Shopping out of Los Angeles County to Orange County

Courts and goes to Lamoreaux Justice Center & Tony Rackauckas D.A. There 3 sets of Court

Documents are sent to the Probate Case BP065666# (Exhibits 38, 39 & 40#). Lamoreaux Justice

Center & Tony Rackauckas D.A. & Corrons-Hickey & Hickey and together work In Concert to

violate the Rights of James Blume and attack the Estate of Mine M. Blume to increase the Child

Support illegally from $129.00 to $364.00, which was never granted by LASC. Exhibits 38, 39 &

40# is a series of Court Documents divided up by a Court Judgment by Judge Schnider. All

of this evidence is manufactured evidence by Lamoreaux Justice Center & Tony Rackauckas D.A.,

Corrons-Hickey & Hickey and Atty Wieder to Steal from the Estate of Mine M. Blume. Is it legal to

make a court ruling on fraud and criminal acts? Are Courts et. al. allowed to butcher court

documents to manufacture and manipulate a falsified verdict or an outcome never order by the

courts? Why is this criminal act allowed in our courts in California? For proof, see the Castaneda's

too and see the similar illegal tactics used on his case too; which proves its a Universal Courtroom

Sham &Scam to steal from the People!

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




All three Exhibits 38, 39 & 40 # are sent one whole package in the same order, not divided up in 3

sections. It is divided up in three Exhibits by Plaintiffs to make it easier to explain and not

overwhelm the reader(s) of this court case and Plaintiffs to explain. The first issue Plaintiffs is the

greed of the Courts. James Blume has paid his attorney (Exhibit 21#) , Ms. Weider for performing

his CLETS form in Exhibit 38#, pages 5-7. Why the constant resubmit on constant payment when it

has already been paid? Is this legal? This is the greed, ugliness and corruption of the Courts to allow

Double-Dipping. Also, this is how the Courts, Tony Rackaukas D.A., DCSS and attorneys work

in concert to create a vicious cycle of overwhelming payments that James Blume cannot come out

from underneath and steal from Probate Cases, stealing from the Dead to violate his 8th

amendment

Rights. Is this legal? Please rule and explain by law!

In Exhibit 38# (12 pages) pages 1 & 2 of 12# is a Notice Regarding Payment of Support Form filed

Feb 07 2002 Court Case 02FL000867#. Page 3 of 12# Court Case 02FL000867# is a Notice of

Registration of California Support Order Form file Jan 31, 2003. Page 4 of 12# Court Case

02FL000867# is a Statement for Registration of California Support Order Form file Jan 31, 2003.

Pages 5 & 6 of 12, Court Case BD317479# filed Jul 28 2000 Restraining Order after Hearing

(CLETS) and on page 7 of 12#, last page of the CLETS there is NO SIGNATURES. According to

CCP 446 (a) personal signature is required akin to the CCP128.7 (b) requirement that all papers filed

with the court must be signed. Page 8 of 12#, Court Case BD317479#, Child Custody and Visitation

Order Attachment Form (1296.31A) proves that Kathy Evans and Sara Blume live in Los Angeles

County not Orange County. The exchange for Sara Blume is at 10210 Bryson Ave South Gate CA.

Atty Weider and Kathy Evans used the Orange County Courts illegally using Judicial Facilitation.

Page 9 of 12# Attachment to Child Custody and Visitation lists the times but not the location.

Page 10 of 12#, Court Case BD317479#, Child Support Information Order Attachment Form

(1296.31B) it states in item 6 under Child Support $364.00. In Exhibit 39# on page 10 &11#

paragraph 52# under FINDINGS, claims James Blume that the cannot make more than $1,000.00 a

month. In paragraph 53#, it states that James Blume must pay $129.00 a month and documented in

Exhibit 22 & 23#. This form is manufactured by Lamoreaux Justice Center & Tony Rackauckas

D.A., Corrons-Hickey & Hickey and Atty. Wieder, not by Judge Schnider. For proof, in Exhibit 38#

on page 12 of 12# it is not signed by Judge Schnider. All Orders and Judgments must have a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




signature. A rubber stamp with print does not constitute or replace a signature from a Judge.

According to CCP 446 (a) personal signature is akin to the CCP 128.7 (b) requirement that all

papers filed with the court must be signed. Therefore this document is illegal, because its NOT

signed by law! Furthermore at the bottom of the page in Exhibit 38# on page 12 of 12# (Exhibit

page number), it states page 8 of 10 in the Court Document page number and a rubber stamp

with manufactured printed dated JUL 28 2000 and ROBERT A. SCHNIDER JUDGE PRO TEM

stops the Court Document on page 8 of 10#. Where is page 9 and 10# of this Court Document? This

entire document is manipulated and manufactured by Lamoreaux Justice Center & Tony Rackauckas

D.A., Corrons-Hickey & Hickey and Atty. Wieder to Steal from the Estate of Mine M. Blume. Can

the Court explain who is manufacturing these illegal Court Documents to steal, why are they able to

abuse the courts and law in this manner and can the FBI perform a thorough investigation and have

these people arrested and disbarred? Criminal acts in the court by the very people who represent law

and justice should not be practicing in any legal system. The problem is Criminal Acts are

rewarded in our Justice System. Otherwise no one would continue the blatant criminal acts

performed throughout this series of Court Cases.

In Exhibit 38#: From Court Case 02FL000867# the first page is a Statement for Registration of

California Support Order Form filed Feb 07 2002 by Tony Rackauckas, D.A. In Exhibit 39# the

first page is Notice of Entry of Judgment Form (1290) from Court Case BD317479# filed Nov 07

2001. The next 1-15 pages is Further Judgment on Reserved Issues from Court Case BD317479#

filed Nov 07 2001.

In Exhibit 38# on page 2# it states on line 27 & 28, in Further Judgment on Reserved Issues it

states on page 2# it states on line 27 & 28 that Respondent is ordered to pay to Petitioner the sum

of $1,178.00 to equalize this division. Said payment may be offset against Petitioner's child

support arrearage owed to Respondent. This was never done and an illegal increase from Orange

County Courts raising child support from $129.00 to $364.00 (Exhibit 20#). Why would Judge

Schnider contradict with an earlier Judgment of $364 (Exhibit 38#, page 10, 11 & 12 of 12#) of July

28, 2000 to a Final Judgment of $129 (Exhibit 39#, page 10, paragraphs 52 & 53) August 20, 2001?

Why did not Judge Schnider mention the change or reduction of Child Support from $364.00 to

$129.00 in the Final Judgment? Because this $364.00 Judgment was made illegally after Judge

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Schinder Final Judgment in August 2001 by another court in orange County trying the same exact

case twice. How can all these Courts, agencies and attorneys enforce a document that is not

signed and a Judgment for $364.00 that does not exist? Also, if two orders by two separate courts

heard the same exact case twice; WHICH ORDER DO I FOLLOW? This is Judicial Entrapment

because Lamoreaux Justice Center, Tony Rackauckas D.A., DCSS and Atty Wieder & Hickey

falsified records and knew James Blume was unemployed, disabled, and could never come out of the

bondage of Child Support the way it was being manufactured and manipulated by the Court et. al.

No matter how many times it is explained to the courts, D.A., memorialized in court documents

Blume et. al. is not heard by the courts, does not have access to the courts and documents

memorializing Criminal Acts by the Courts are destroyed. How does the courts explain these is illegal

and criminal acts by their own Justice System to steal from the people they were supposed to serve?

NOT STEAL FROM, USING JUDICIAL FACILITATION AND PERJURY!!!

Furthermore in Exhibit 39# it is stated in Further Judgment on Reserved Issues it states on page

10#, line 14, under Child Support: paragraph 52#, line 16 .. As to Petitioner's ability to earn,

his jobs in the recent past have been scattered, limited and of short term. He seems to have

difficulty navigating successfully in society, and the court declines to find that he has the current

ability to earn more than $1,000.00 per month gross monthly earnings. In paragraph 53# it

states, Petitioner shall pay to the Respondent for the support of the child SARA LYNN BLUME

born March 03, 1996, $129.00 per month, payable one half on the first and one-half on the

fifteenth day of each month, commencing September 01, 2001. There is no mention of a prior

Judgment is Child Support in the amount of $364.00 or an adjustment of $364.00 to $129.00 because

it never existed. It is evident that these courts are accustomed to bribery, stealing money and criminal

acts of rr-trying cases to steal because this court document will show that this behavior of bribery,

stealing money and criminal acts are always allowed. The Courts of California laugh at the poor,

colored, deprived, etc. This is why The People need a Filer's Bill of Rights with a checklist. This

Filer's Bill of Rights is designed with a checklist (form) so the Courts cannot tamper with the

evidence, force Judges to rule, allow lies or false evidence, and with the justification for the Judge's

Ruling, and accountability after each Court Appearance what was construed for proper Justice. This

checklist would immediately stop a Judicial Scam to sell decisions. When a violation in the checklist

occurs, The People can contact an agency, Supervising Agency over the Courts to cease criminal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




activities in Court immediately by showing the Check-List. The error would be fixed

immediately and the court case can continue with another Judge. The new Judge can review the

Filer's Bill of Rights form/checklist and begin where the case left off or stopped. If a Judge is

constantly taken to the Supervising Agency, it will note the Corruption of this Judge, keep the Justice

System accountable and stop rewarding criminal acts used for many years to steal.

In Exhibit 40#, is when Lamoreaux Justice Center, Tony Rackauckas D.A., DCSS and Atty Wieder

& Hickey falsified records these records and attack the Probate Case BP065666#. Page 1 of 20# is a

Statement for Registration of California Support Order from from Court Case 02FL000867# filed

Feb 07 2002, which has James Blume's Correct address in item 5# that is established back in

02/07/2002. Page 2 of 20# is a Declaration of Support Arrearage form filed Feb 07 2002. Pages 3 to

6 of 20# are Proof of Service forms by Mail by the O.C. DCSS Jan C. Sturla, Director to Catherine

Grant Wieder, Mary Ann Blume Rodriguez, Mary Sarmiento, and Jassmine Blume and sent to

Probate Case BP065666# on 08/11/04 signed by Kathleen Twitty, Paralegal.

On page 7 of 20# is a Notice of Lien form by O.C. DCSS Jan C. Sturla, Director, signed and dated

08/11/04 and by Linda Rovito, Deputy Department Counsel. On page 8 of 20# is a recycled,

already used Proof of Service by Mail probably used for the Final Judgment is dated October 23,

2001 by Catherine Grant Wieder. For proof it states on page 8 of 20# (Exhibit page number) at the

bottom of the page in the footer it reads Further Judgment of Reserved Issues. It also states that

this is probably page 15# on court number paper above the footer from the Further Judgment of

Reserved Issues. How can a Proof of Service dated October 23, 2001 by Catherine Grant Wieder

send a court documents pages 1 through 7 of 20# that was written 08/11/04 and signed by Linda

Rovito, Deputy Department Counsel 3 years prior to these court documents being written? How does

Linda Rovito, Deputy Department Counsel sign and date court documents pages 1 through 7 of 20#

dated 08/11/04 and sent or mailed by Catherine Grant Wieder October 23, 2001, 3 years before it

was written? How is this possible? This is Judicial Fraud. Does the courts see the blatant lies of the

the court et. al? How does the courts explain these criminal acts? It seems the more lies the court et.

al. writes and the more people involved, court et. al. believes their lies are the truth. This is Judicial

Bullying and violates Blume et. al. 5th

, 8th

and 14th

Amendment Rights.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Furthermore pages 9 to 13 of 20# verifies this Judicial Fraud making illegal calculations of child

support to support their Judicial Fraud by working in concertand criminal acts by claiming James

Blume ever had to pay $364.00. Although certification and verification is lacking throughout these

court documents, plus Judge Schnider's signature is missing in Exhibit 38#, page 12 of 12#, and

placing the last page of a Further Judgment of Reserved Issues as a Proof of Service by Mail dated

and sent October 23, 2001, by Catherine Grant Wieder 3 years prior to an stamp of Certification of

Official Record dated 08/11/04 by Kathleen Twitty existed. How is Kathleen Twitty able to Certify

an Official Record when all the Court Documents are fraudulent, manipulated and manufactured

Illegally and all the acts leading up to the Certification of Official Record dated 08/11/04 are

criminal? How does the Court explain these criminal acts?

Pages 14 & 15 of 20# are another set of Proof of Service forms by Mail by the O.C. DCSS Jan C.

Sturla, Director and sent to Probate Case BP065666# on 08/11/04 signed by Kathleen Twitty,

Paralegal. Pages 16 to 20 of 20# another set of illegal documents of child support that never existed.

Again how is Kathleen Twitty, Paralegal able to sent and certify illegal court documents that are

fraudulent and have been manipulated and manufactured illegal by Courts et al.? The Courts et. al.

are falsifying illegal court documents and performing criminal acts. How is this legal? Can the

courts explain the repetitious falsifying illegal court documents and performing criminal acts in the

same document an overt act that the court et. al. construes any type of Justice? This is flat out evil.

3. HISTORY OF COURT CASES THAT TESTIFY TO CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL

ACTS OF JUDICIAL SCAMS:

There are so many Court Scams one cannot even to begin the name them all. Blume et. al. through

our journey through court cases and have experience multiple scams so the courts could steer the

court case to a predictive or predetermined verdict, which is Judicial Discrimination and Judicial

Prejudice. Are these Scams legal? These Court Scams violate our 5th

, 7th

and 14th

Amendments for

Due Process, Procedural Law and the right to a jury trial. Just some of the Judicial Scams are list

below. When the Courts et. al. have several companies and agencies involved (Farmers Insurance,

LAHD, Playa Vista Property Management Inc., LAPD et. al.) and this is a pattern (Exhibit 34#) then

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




this becomes Judicial Fraud, Judicial Conspiracy, Judicial Retaliation, Judicial Bullying, Judicial

Facilitation and Judicial R.I.C.O.

NOT HAVING ACCESS TO THE COURTS SCAM (Exhibits 1 to 89#),

DESTROYING EVIDENCE SCAM (Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 16, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 56, 57, 76 & 77),

FORCED TO PERFORM AS AN ATTORNEY IN PRO PER SCAM (Exhibits 2, 15, 17, 31, 33,

34, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50 , 51, 52, 53, 54, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 & 82#),

ATTORNEYS FAILURE TO REPRESENT (Exhibits 2, 15, 17, 18, 21, 34, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,

50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 84, 85, 86, 87 & 88#),

THE COURTS HIRE ATTORNEYS (Exhibits 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 34, 42 43, 44, 46,47, 48, 49, 50,

51, 52, 54, 65, 71, 73, 75, 83 & 86#),

HIDING COURT DOCUMENTS IN OTHER COURT CASES (Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17

(Service List, page 4 of 5 LASC Case No. BC475710#),

FORUM SHOPPING (Exhibits 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 71, 85, 86,

87 & 88)

AMBUSH SCAM (Exhibits 18, 19, 47, 48, 44, 73, 17, 86, 87 & 88)

ADDRESS SCAM (Exhibit 64# and Exhibits 1 to 89#)

AMEND SCAM: (Exhibits 31, 33 & 62#)

BAIT & SWITCH SCAM: (Exhibits 13 & 62#)

MANUFACTURING AND MANIPULATING EVIDENCE SCAM:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




3A# FORCED TO PERFORM AS ATTORNEYS IN PRO PER:

The Courts are adamant and convinced that the poor, health compromised and challenged, colored,

etc., in Pro Per are forced to perform as attorneys and better. When Plaintiffs attend any Court at any

level, the Commissioners, Judges, attorneys and Courts demand Plaintiffs must perform as attorneys.

This is why Plaintiffs lose all their cases. The Courts et al. retaliate against the Plaintiffs for

requesting Justice. Our Court Cases are not heard and simply dismissed.

It is even stated in writing by Commissioner Vogl in Court Case 08D003897#, A Tentative Decision

on Reserved Issues in Exhibit 15#, page 4, under the topic Discussion: It is boldly stated that

self representing litigants & prokpria persona litigants are not entitled to a fair hearing and must

perform as an attorney with sited Court Cases to justify.

line 12# ....It must be clearly stated that the standards in court are no different for the self representing litigant, and

that by enforcing the rules the court is not being biased.

line 15# ....Courts hold then to the same standards as to an attorney. (City of Los Angeles v. Glair (2007)

153 Cal.App.4th

813, 819; Gamet v Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th

1276, 1284-1285.).

line 19# ....Further, the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an

attorney[citation]. (Nelson v Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639 fn. Omitted; see also Gamet

v Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th

1276, 1284-1285.

line 23# ....mere self-representation is not ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. (Rappleyea vs.

Campbell, 1994, 8 Cal4th 974.

Continued.......Exhibit 15#, page 5:

line 3# ....Otherwise, ignorance would be unjustly rewarded. Such a litigant is entitled to the same

but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. See Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.

App.3d 1044.

lines 6-8# A layman with resources who insists upon exercising the privilege of represent himself must expect and

receive the same treatment as if represented by an attorney no different, no better, no worse. Ackerman vs.

Southern Arizona Bank, 1932, 39 Ariz. 484.

The California Courts, Judges, etc is looking at inheritance as resources mentioned in the above

lines 6-8#. The California Courts et al. look at an inheritance as their money and the people who

worked hard and died are not entitled to give it to legacy or their desires. The California Courts et al.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




believes inheritances belong to them. In Exhibit 22#, l page, third paragraph, it states ...when

you receive your inheritance.... The Courts and divorce Court Cases are not entitled to a person's

inheritance. It is not even a month after the divorce in Court Case BD317419#. The letter is dated

October 23, 2001 and states in the last line of paragraph 3, Your current support requirement is

$129 per month effective September 1, 2001. When LASC informs Attorney Wieder to Appeal if

she does not like the Final Judgment, Attorney Wieder opens a new case in Orange County at

Lamoreaux Justice Center (02FL000867#).

In Exhibit 15#, page 5, lines 6-8# A layman with resources who insists upon exercising the

privilege of represent himself must expect and receive the same treatment as if represented by an

attorney no different, no better, no worse. How does the Courts know that I am a layman with

resources? How does the Courts determine this? It is because the California Courts believe I have

an inheritance and the California Courts et. al. are entitled to steal from the inheritance. This Court

Case 08D003897# is also in Orange County at Lamoreaux Justice Center and Plaintiffs know this is

Judicial Retaliation and Judicial R.I.C.O. Plaintiff went bankrupted for owing from this and other

court cases 8:12-bk-16255-CB, 8:12-bk-18590-CB. Again how did Lamoreaux Justice

Center determine Plaintiff was A layman with resources?

For proof, in Exhibit 15#, page 6, line 8, it states Respondent did not comply with Family Code

Section 3665 and file a copy of his tax returns. Respondent did not comply with Family Code

Section 3665 and refuses to continue to comply by withholding his tax returns year after year.

Furthermore Respondent is Rewarded for not complying with Family Code Section 3665 by

reduction of Child Support Exhibit 15#, page 7, line 20-23, Child Support is dropped from $723 to

$495 and Spousal Supports Exhibit 15#, page 13, line 3-7, is dropped from $1,000 to $650. How

does the Court determine this unless the Commissioner took a bribe?

What the Courts are saying is when you are poor, disabled, colored etc...you are not entitled to be in

court and to seek any type of Justice. These are the Rules the California Court enforce to create

failure. When Plaintiffs make an error the Courts automatically dismiss our Court Cases. If the

Courts make an error or the case is in default, the Courts order Plaintiffs to amend their Court

Documents to release time restrains on illegal Court Documents. This is due to a bribe. This is to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




keep the poor, poor...the rich, rich and Criminal Judges on the bench to support this type of Injustice.

Furthermore the Courts will continue make one poor, create harm and make one desolate.

According to The Court, when interpreting Pro Se Papers, should use common sense to determine what

relief the party desires. S.E.C. v Elliot, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992). See also, United States v.

Miller, 197 F. 3d 664, 648 (3rd

Cir. (1999) (The Court has a special obligation to construe pro se litigants

pleadings liberally); Pooling v. K. Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F. Supp. 2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J. 2000)

contradicts all the Rules and Laws of Commissioner Vogl in Court Case 08D003897#, A Tentative

Decision on Reserved Issues in Exhibit 15#, page 4, under the topic Discussion: where he

boldly stated that self representing litigants & propria persona litigants are not entitled to a fair

hearing and must perform as an attorney with sited Court Cases to justify. Also according to

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8 (c ) (f) and (e) Constructing Pleadings:

Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice or as substantial justice. Plaintiffs are raped

of Justice. Does the Court see the contradiction and Judicial Retaliation in the statements in Exhibit

15# by Commissioner Vogl to the laws and rules of the Court listed above? Why would the Court

Abuse their power? Can the Courts explain this?

3B# ATTORNEYS FAILURE TO REPRESENT:

In Court Case 04CC12138#: Attorney Carol A Gefis, our attorney from Oswald & Yap went Forum

Shopping for a Judge she could bribe, steal money and not defend. She closed out Court Case

03CC05038# and opened a new case 04CC12138#. Attorney Gefis came to court the day of the Jury

Trial, and claimed she could not win against Attorney Jeffrey Bradpiece therefore Plaintiff's were

forced into a settlement (Exhibits 44, 45, 46 & 17#). Plaintiff's had a choice of accepting a bad

Settlement or risk going to Court with an Attorney, Carol A. Gefis that claimed she would lose

against Respondent's attorney, Jeffrey Bradpiece. This happened in Jose Castaneda's Court Case.

The Courts claim that his attorney, Ivan Shomer, did not have a MC-50# Substitution of Attorney. It

was found in Court Documents days later. Attorney Shomer did not represent Jose Castaneda and

was stuck representing himself. In Exhibit 45#, it lists in the Court Docket of Register of Actions a

(ROA 45#, page 2 0f 5) Jury Fees are Posted on 11/09/2005 & (ROA 79#, page 3 of 5) Jury

Instruction on 04/18/2006 (Exhibit 45#). After paying for a Jury Trial, Plaintiff's never got a Jury

Trial. This violates Blume et. al. 7th

Amendment Rights. Oswald & Yap got $80,000.00 for doing

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




nothing. Also, Plaintiff James Blume did not receive his Judgment. It is the continuous Judicial

Fraud, Judicial Facilitation and Judicial R.I.C.O. that violates James Blume's 8th

Amendment Rights

of Cruel & Unusual Punishment. Furthermore Carol A. Gefis is not a Probate Attorney and that is

why her name is not listed as Plaintiff's Attorney. Attorney Gefis is Rewarded by the Courts by not

giving James Blume his share of the Judgment $129,000.00 and James Blume share of the Judgment,

the bounty was shared with Judge, attorneys involved and Oswald & Yap. For proof, what was

James Blume awarded for his share in the property? Nothing! Plaintiffs found out just recently that

Attorney Gefis is a Labor & Employment Attorney. Can the courts explain why we did not get a Jury

Trial after paying for it? If we paid for a Jury Trial and did not get it where is our refund? Do Judges

normally get ready for a Jury Trial and see that parties are settling on an amount that we spent just to

get to trial? Can the Judge see that the Settlement is lopsided? Does the Judge ever ask why people

are settling for so little? These Judges are bribed and had no intention of going to court. If Jose

Castaneda found the MC-50# and the error was on the Courts should not the Court practice Due

Process & Procedural Law and allow this case to be heard? Also, this Judge had no intention of

going to trial, because the Court et. al. had already stolen the money from his mother's account via

Attorney Mercado. Can the Courts explain where the assets from Jose Castaneda's mother's bank

account went?

In Court Case 08D003897#: Sheryl Edgar refused to represent Plaintiff about a week before trial

date. On November 10, 2008 Substitution of Attorney Form filed by S.L. Edgar. Petitioner requested

from the Courts for Attorney Edgar to finish the Court Case. On 12/12/2008 Attorney Edgar did not

appear for court, but still won the court case and was no longer my attorney. For proof, check the

Court's electronic monitoring recorder per Rule 11 (Exhibit 15#, page 3, lines 1- 8). Plaintiff paid

Attorney Edgar $20,000 for doing nothing. Furthermore Plaintiff hires a new attorney, Thomas

Alkam, January 6, 2009 (Exhibit 15#, page 3, lines 10- 17). Attorney Alkam realizes that Attorney

Edgar has done nothing. Attorney Alkam memorialize this in a letter dated 01/09/2009 requesting

information (Exhibit 19#, 2 pages). In paragraph 3, Attorney Alkam discusses the Deposition

Subpoena issued to CalSTRS by Attorney Edgar. It is stated Was the Subpoena served? If yes, has

there been any document produced in response to the same? Attorney Alkam did nothing either

because this very issue is discussed by Commissioner Vogl in Court Case 08D003897#, A Tentative

Decision on Resevered Issues (Exhibit 15#, page 15, lines 23- 24) stating It would seem that the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




CALSTRS pension plans of the parties were disposed of pursuant to the parties' stipulation of Sept. 4,

2008, but the court retains jurisdiction to make such orders are appropriate to effectuate the

division. Money is missing throughout this court trial. Plaintiff believes this money was used to

bribe Comm. Vogl. Plaintiff paid Attorney Alkam $18,000 to finish the trial, instead Plaintiff paid

Attorney Alkam for doing nothing.

In Court Case 12D001267# (Exhibit 85#): In Lavine v. Lavine, Melody Lavine had the same or

similar problems as Court Case 08D003897#. 2 attorneys failed to perform. Her first attorney

midway through the Court refused to represent her. The second attorneys was even worst. In

Register of Actions No. 36# Income & Expense Declaration 08/04/2012, this attorneys took an old

Income & Expense Declaration from the former attorney and submitted. The Judge was bribed. The

second attorney forced her to take a settlement and refused to represent her. As the Melody Lavine

cried while signing the Settlement the Attorney claimed he had better things than her court trial to do

because his wife is pregnant with child and he is busy.

In Court Case BC453664 & BC470365#: In Exhibit 42#, really says it all. First of all, there is no

Substitution of Attorney Form MC-50# from Early, Maslach & O'Shea (Daniel P. Tusa, Esq) (Exhibit

74#) to Veatch Carlson, LLP (Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J. Rice). Why is Veatch Carlson, LLP

(Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J. Rice in LASC representing nobody in BC470365# & BC485710#?

Is this legal? In Exhibit 42#, on page 1, line 1, Veatch Carlson, LLP from Farmer's Insurance is

representing both Plaintiffs. On page 1, line 4 , 5 & 6, Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J. Rice is

representing both Plaintiffs, Mary Ann Rodriguez and James L. Blume. Throughout this Court Case

of BC453664 & BC470365# these two Court Cases are Consolidated. Because these two cases

appear on each and every court form, both court cases BC453664 & BC470365# are listed on the

same Court Documents. If both court cases are not consolidated, then separate court documents

should be prepared for each court case just as Manuel Shimabukuro, et al v. Mary Ann Blume, et al.

which is an identical court case to BC470365# and just another related court case.

In Exhibit 42#, page 2#, again Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J. Rice from Farmer's Insurance is

representing both Plaintiffs, Mary Ann Rodriguez and James L. Blume. However on page 4#, Daniel

P. Tusa, Esq. from Early, Maslach & O'shea is from Farmer's Insurance is representing both Plaintiffs,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Mary Ann Rodriguez and James L. Blume. However on line 14, James Blume is a Plaintiff in Pro

Per and on line 17, Mary Ann Blume is a Plaintiff in Pro Per also. Who is Mary Ann

Rodriguez? In the same court document how can Early, Maslach & O'shea represent us, but never

attended Court in LASC? How does Veatch Carlson, LLP (Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J. Rice)

claimed to represent Blume et. al. without a MC-50? How can both Early, Maslach & O'shea and

Veatch Carlson, LLP (Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J. Rice) represent us and Blume et. al. is in Pro

Per. How does the Court explain this? Can the Court explain this? How does, at the top of page 4

under Service List, Kathy Watt, et al. v Mary Ann Blume et al. the Court Case No reads LASC Case

No. BC470365# just as the Related to Manuel Shimabukuro, et al. v. Mary Ann Blume et al. Both

Court Cases have the same Court Cast No., LASC Case No. BC470365#. Furthermore how does, at

the top of page 4 under Service List, Kathy Watt, et al. v Mary Ann Blume et. al. have the same court

case number as Manuel Shimabukuro et al v. Mary Ann Blume et. al. Both Court Cases read

BC470365#. How is that possible? Can the Courts explain this?

In Exhibit 43#: The same problems occur. Again on page 1 & 2, Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J.

Rice, (Veatch Carlson, LLP) from Farmer's Insurance is representing both Plaintiffs, Mary Ann

Rodriguez and James L. Blume. However on page 1, line 11, instead of Kathy Watt and Nancy

Garcia, it should read Manuel Shimabukuro, et al. and the Case No. should be BC485710#, not

BC470365#. On page 3 & 4, Court form SUBP-015 reads under Plaintiff/Petitioner Kathy Watt, et.

al. It should read Manuel Shimabukuro, et al. and the Case No. should be BC485710#, not

BC453664#. On page 6#, Daniel P. Tusa, Esq. from Early, Maslach & O'Shea (Farmer's Insurance) is

representing both Plaintiffs, Mary Ann Rodriguez and James L. Blume. However on line 14, James

Blume is a Plaintiff in Pro Per and on line 17, Mary Ann Blume is a Plaintiff in Pro Per also. Again,

who is Mary Ann Rodriguez?

Furthermore at the top of page 6, Kathy Watt, et al. v Mary Ann Blume et al. the Court Case No reads

LASC Case No. BC470365# just as the Related to Manuel Shimabukuro, et al. v. Mary Ann Blume et

al. Both Court Cases have the same Court Cast No., LASC Case No. BC470365#. According to

Exhibit 44#, Court Case BC485710#, Shimabukuro, Manuel et al. v. Blume Mary Ann, et al. should

have been done September 18, 2013 at 9:30 am by Farmer's Insurance, Veatch Carlson, LLP, Cyril

Czajkowskyj and according to Exhibit 74# Court Case BC470365# Kathy Watt v. Blume should

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




have gone to trial February 27, 2013 at 8:30 am by Farmer's Insurance, Early, Maslach & O'Shea,

Daniel P. Tusa, Esq. It is almost one year later and nothing has been done. Why is this allowed?

How does the courts and our attorneys from Farmers Insurance justify these simple court cases

prolonged for a year to end up in Settlements? They have to Settle because everything from the

Complaint filed is Fraud, Criminal and illegal. Blume et. al. refuses to settle and wants to go to trial.

In Exhibit 43 & 46#: In Exhibit 46# Veatch Carlson, LLP has the same errors as Exhibit 43#.

Both Notices of Depositions on line 17, it reads Trial Date: NONE. How can the trial date read

NONE when according to Exhibit 44# Court Case BC485710#, Shimabukuro, Manuel et al. v.

Blume Mary Ann, et al. should have been done September 18, 2013 at 9:30 am by Farmer's

Insurance, Veatch Carlson, LLP, Cyril Czajkowskyj. These depositions are a formality and never

performed. The worst part they are being performed 09/16/2013, 2 days prior to their court date

09/18/2013. Standard Operation of Procedures are not performed, such as Depositions, etc. It is not

performed in all court cases represented by FARMER'S INSURANCE, Veatch Carlson, LLP, Atty.

Cyril Czajkowskyj and Atty. Robert Rice and Early, Maslach & O'Shea, Atty. Daniel P. Tusa.

When FARMER'S INSURANCE, Veatch Carlson, LLP , Atty. Cyril Czajkowsk