Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos

7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos

1/16

!1

E058417!

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO

Court of Appeal E058417L.A. Superior Court YC064994

Lead for additional SuperiorCourt consolidated casesEttlin v. Slawson, YC065018

Ettlin v. Kriegler, YC065019

Ettlin v. Taylor, YC065021

Ettlin v. Kuhl, YC065164

Cooper v. Weinbach, SC113064

Cooper v. Levanas, SC113135

Cooper v. Todd, SC113137Cooper v. Ashmann, SC113136

Daniel COOPER,an individual;

Plaintiff/Appellant

)))))))))))

)

v.

Elia WEINBACH,an individual;

Defendant/Respondent.

Appeal From a Judgment ofThe Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

The Honorable Robert OBrien

APPELLANTS REPLY TO RESPONDENTS BRIEF

Daniel Cooper, In Pro Per1836 10th Street #BSanta Monica, CA 90404310-562-7668

Kevin M. McCormickBenton, Orr, Duval and Buckingham39 North California Street,Post Office Box 1178Ventura, California 93002


2/16

!2

E058417!

!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 4

II. JUDICIAL BIASES ARE NOT ARGUED JUST DISMISSED .................... 5

III. NO APPRECIATION OF STURGEON I........................................................ 5

IV. RESPONDENTS TRIVIALIZE THE CAPERTON DECISION.................... 7

V. RESPONDENTS IGNORE CHALLENGES IN STURGEON II.................... 8

VI. RESPONDENTS IGNORE THE CJP ANALYSIS ........................................ 8

VII. FALSE STATEMENT BY RESPONDENTS .............................................. 9

VIII. SMELLS LIKE A BRIBE ......................................................................... 10

IX. PLAINTIFFS ARE PATRIOTIC NOT VEXATIOUS ................................... 12

X. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 12


3/16

!3

E058417!

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc.,

566 U.S. ___ (2009) ...................................................................7, 12

Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) ......................................... passim167 Cal.App. 6, 630, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 242 rev. denied 12/23/08

Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2010)191 Cal.App. 4th 344 .............................................................. passim

Statutes

28 U.S.C. 2403 (b) (Determination of Constitutionality) ...................8

Constitutional Provisions

U.S. Constitution, First Amendment ................................................12

Codes

California Code of Civil Procedure ...................................................4

California Government Code .......................................................8, 10

SBX2 11 ................................................................................. passim(2009 Cal. Legis. Serv., 2nd Ex. Sess., Chap. 9 (S.B. 11)


4/16

!4

E058417!

I. SUMMARYJudicial Officers may indeed merit pay increases. The current supplemental

judicial payments are not the way to do it. The current payment system isunconstitutional, violates the California Code of Civil Procedure, and ignores the biases

that arise from the county payments. The payments directly by the Superior Courts may

even be illegal.

Respondents, through the Court Counsel, are fixated on absolute judicial

immunity. In spite of the copious legal references supporting immunity, they never

address why Section 5 of SBX2 11 legislation was needed or why it was needed so

hastily. How was the authorization of payments stated any differently in SBX2 11 than

in the Lockyer-Isenberg statute? For Respondents, Lockyer-Isenberg was only a little

bit unconstitutional per se, just like a little bit pregnant.

The Standard of Review for this case is NOT an abuse of discretion. Plaintiffs

loss of multiple constitutional guarantees requires a STRICT SCRUTINY standard of

review by judges who, at a minimum, have never taken the supplemental judicial

benefits.

Elia Weinbach took $153,549 of unconstitutional monies from Los Angeles

County and participated in tax fraud by not paying federal or state taxes on that money.

Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) held the payments

unconstitutional, stripping him of judicial immunity. The Commission on Judicial

Performance has determined SBX2 11 to be unconstitutional, the payments illegal thus

denying Weinbach the Legislatures retroactive immunity, itself unconstitutional.

The consolidated cases include three Justices of the Appellate Court because

they took county payments while serving in the Superior Court. Californias legislature,

Supreme Court and Attorney General must address this issue immediately to preclude a

Federal Court from overseeing the dismantling of the largest judicial corruption case in

the United States.


5/16

!5

E058417!

II. JUDICIAL BIASES ARE NOT ARGUED JUST DISMISSEDRespondents approach to discussing Plaintiffs contention of bias, bribes and

fraud is to simply dismiss them as having no basis in fact or law, page 8, line 4. To

the contrary, Judge OBrien overruled this portion of Respondents Demurrer and

stated, the allegations upon which plaintiff relies are clearly stated, and, although

unsound, are not uncertain, vague or ambiguous [AA-337].

The former spokesman for the judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court stated

that the majority of the Judges see the judicial payments as an entitlement1. They have

no appreciation or sensitivity to the fact they are essentially being paid twice for the

same work. It was clear that the judges financial self interest is so tied up in those

benefit payments, that no judge can rule on the propriety of those benefits.

Consequently, there is the appearance of a code of silence by the judges on this issue.

Accordingly, the judgment entered in favor of Judge Weinbach should be

DENIED.

III. RESPONDENTS SHOW NO APPRECIATION FORSTURGEON ISturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) Rev. denied

12/23/08, (Sturgeon I) held that the L.A. County payments to L.A. Superior Court

judges violated Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution because the 1997

Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act, while it DID authorize judicial benefits, it

did NOT set any standards for exercising the delegated authority and THUS the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1!One judge apparently remarked that if the payments were terminated, there go my

Hollywood Bowl tickets. Media coverage by Full Disclosure The News Behind The

News 2012, AAW/Full Disclosure Network ; Court Insider Exposes Judicial

Treachery #630-632; Release Date: November 16, 2012

http://www.fulldisclosure.net/2012/11/court-insider-exposes-judicial-treachery/!!


6/16

!6

E058417!

authorization under Lockyer-Isenberg of judicial benefits payments by counties to

Superior Court judges was an unconstitutional delegation of power.

There is no such thing as a little bit unconstitutional. And yet Respondents

boldly proclaim on page 5, next to last line, that the payments are constitutional under

Sturgeon I. On page 9, Respondents continue to claim the payments are not

unconstitutional per se. Then they continue on the last line stating the payments are

only unconstitutional because... Lockyer-Isenberg was only a little bit

unconstitutional, (to borrow a popular metaphor) just like a little bit pregnant.

Very importantly, while SBX2 11 attempted to give immunity for receiving the

unconstitutional payments, Senate bill SBX2 11, Section 5, made no mention of

retroactive immunity for judges or temporary judges who had received the county

payments and did not disclose such and presided over cases in which the county had an

interest.

A spokesman for the Los Angeles Superior Court recently characterized the

long-held and prevailing attitudes among Los Angeles County Judges as follows:

..like so many people in Court who havent yet gotten confortable with the fact

that the Court is no longer a County agency and that is why you see this particular court

locked in such a futile battle with the AOC [Administrative Office of the Courts].

Judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court still are not ready to accept that.

the County Courts became entities of the State and the State runs the show

The Los Angeles Court is not ready to agree that power has shifted and the

judges here no longer have it.

[Sturgeon] held that Boards of Supervisors didnt have the statutory powers to

make those payments because the Legislature had never specifically enacted a law

allowing that, so the overall purpose of that bill [SBX2 11] was to clean that up

The fact that those payments had been, strictly speaking, illegal for years was

never addressed


7/16

!7

E058417!

..there were courts, a couple of them, that were illegally diverting Court

operating money to pay extra benefits, so the farther the AOC got into it, the clearer it

became that there was the makings of a widespread scandal about self-dealing, and

self interest by judges 2

Judge Weinbach currently displays no appreciation for the impact of the

Sturgeon decisions. He also continues a great bias against Appellant for daring to insist

on equal 50% treatment in matters of child custody and division of financial assets.

IV. RESPONDENTS TRIVIALIZE THE CAPERTON DECISIONRespondents assert that the Caperton case only involved an extreme

contribution of $3 million to overturn a $50 million verdict. While the one time

contribution of $3 million was large by many peoples standard, it represented just 6%

of the verdict hoping to be overturned. Respondent totally fails to address the fact that

for Los Angeles County, the $30 million in judicial payments to over 400 judges netted

$170 million in Title IV-D funds alone. That is a 467% payoff! Perhaps Court Counsel,

Brett Bianco, fails to see this County payoff as extreme, because his own supplemental

judicial benefits money [AA402] amounts to only a paltry 22% salary increase annually.

Looked at differently, from the Litigation Managers point of view, the $30

million is a VERY extreme contribution when compared to the $90 million of publicly-

admitted actual settlements and legal fees (AA144-145). The legal fees of $44 million

were the lowest in 5 years. For 2007-2008, the manager touted that the countys

prevailing in 66% of trials and 90% of appellate cases.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2!Media coverage by Full Disclosure The News Behind The News 2012, AAW/Full

Disclosure Network ; Court Insider Exposes Judicial Treachery #630-632; Release

Date: November 16, 2012

http://www.fulldisclosure.net/2012/11/court-insider-exposes-judicial-treachery/


8/16

!8

E058417!

V. RESPONDENTS IGNORE THE COURTS OWN CALL FORTAXPAYER CHALLENGES INSTURGEON II

Plaintiffs filed these 10 suits because Judges who personally accepted payments

from anyone other than the State of California lost all the immunity protections cited by

Respondents. For this reason, Plaintiff ignores all the references to judicial immunity or

government code protections for state employees. Sturgeon Ivoided all those immunity

protections. Respondents are in denial as to both the outcome and the impact of

Sturgeon I.

Sturgeon IIstates that the situation post SBX2 11 preserved the status quo

ante Sturgeon I [AA-140] and give[s] rise to further challenges by taxpayers.

Thus, SBX2 11 solved nothing. Plaintiffs are not vexatious but rather following the

actions expressly stated in Sturgeon IIby the Fourth Appellate Court [AA-140].

Accordingly, the judgment entered in favor of Judge Weinbach should be

DENIED.

VI. RESPONDENTS IGNORE THE CJP ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONSThe Commission on Judicial Performance has determined that SBX2 11 is

unconstitutional for several reasons. Respondents totally ignore that analysis as well as

all prior Attorney General analyses and opinions. [AA-165]. Plaintiff is entitled to, and

will soon be requesting, a ruling from the California Attorney General certifying the

constitutionality of SBX2 11. The request will be pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court

Rules 14.1 (e)(v) and Rule 29(4)(c) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403 (b). This case will

be before the U.S. Supreme Court in a few short months.

The Standard of Review for this case is NOT for an abuse of discretion. The loss

of multiple constitutional guarantees requires a STRICT SCRUTINY standard of

review. Furthermore, the scrutiny must come from judges who, at a minimum, have


9/16

!9

E058417!

never taken the supplemental judicial benefits, never advocated for Californias

judicial officers, and with minimal professional ties to judicial officers.

VII. FALSE STATEMENT BY RESPONDENTS! Number ONE: on page 6, item B. first line and again on page 12, B. line 1,

Respondents claim It is indisputable that Ettlin and Cooper have sued the respondents

in their respective capacities as the judicial officer .. That is false. Every one of the

ten complaints is captioned with the respondent as An Individual. Appellants sought

to strike the demurrer in every one of the cases arguing the cases were not filed against

judicial officers but were properly pleaded against individuals. Appellants attempted to

properly serve the individuals at their places of work. Court Counsel used the L.A.

County Sheriff to intimidate Plaintiff Ettlin into not serving the individuals. The same

Superior Court supported Court Counsel and refused to issue a restraining order [AA-

252] allowing Plaintiff to properly serve the individuals. Plaintiffs made every effort to

treat the individuals as the disqualified judges they are. It is the Respondents who

arbitrarily decided that Pro Per litigants had improperly sued, and then Respondents

based their entire demurrer on the protections of government employees and judicial

immunity. In fact, it is Court Counsel which is engaged in misuse of public funds.

Number TWO: On page 7, item V, A, Line 1, Respondents incorrectly state that

Plaintiffs claim the mere receipt of local judicial benefits is unconstitutional. In fact, it

is the Fourth Appellate Court, in Sturgeon I, that has stated the mere receipt of

payments is unconstitutional. While Plaintiffs agree with the Fourth Appellate Courtand the CJP, the Plaintiffs suits are additionally based upon, and have repeatedly stated

that Respondents were sued because they not only received the unconstitutional county

payments but they also did not disclose such and most importantly presided over cases

in which the county had an interest.


10/16

!10

E058417!

Respondents seem incapable of seeing the linkage between the county revenues

(interests) generated in Traffic Court and Family Court. Respondents have never

addressed the revenue issues of Traffic Court and Family Court. In fact, footnote 9 on

page 7 demonstrates that Court Counsel as well as many judicial officers think that the

County of Los Angeles is a sovereign entity. It is Respondents own understanding of

our government that is absurd and unworkable.

While Respondents are incapable of seeing the revenue biases and county

interests in Plaintiffs suits, Court Counsel is itself actively engaged in seeking to

disqualify a different Los Angeles County Judge. Plaintiff understands that she is biased

against the County Foster Care program and thus causes a loss of Title IV-F Foster Care

revenues. Judge Amy Pellman receives the county payments but is not perceived to be

keeping the bargain.

Justice Posner of the 7th Circuit stated in his remarks relating to Sir Francis

Bacon, that the judge who does not fulfill the bargain after he has taken the money is

equally as corrupt as the judge who takes the money and fulfills the bargain.

VIII. SMELLS LIKE A BRIBEPlaintiff also ignores all citations to the Government Codes protecting

government entities and employees. Plaintiffs are not suing any governmental entity or

any person in their role as a governmental employee. The receipt of County payments is

not within the scope of employment and therefore may give the appearance of a bribe.

Plaintiffs are suing for denial of their constitutional rights. Just as the BANE civil rights

act separates organizations (CCC 51.7), from individuals (CCC 52.1), so Plaintiff

sues Elia Weinbach as an individual, not as part of his employment organization.

The constitutional test for the county payments is whether Ettlin and Cooper

would be prosecuted for bribery if they gave money to the persons representing


11/16

!11

E058417!

themselves as judges in their cases. Neither Plaintiffs nor the County of Los Angeles

are sovereign entities and therefore payments by either must be governed by equal

protection.

Respondents also ignore the similarity of the county payments to the case in

western Pennsylvania where Judge Ciavarella was charged with racketeering, bribery

and extortion for sentencing thousands of young people and funneling them into two

private detention centers3. Prosecutors say those centers were run by his friends who

slipped him payments in a cash for kids scheme. A friend and developer, Mr. Powell,

pleaded guilty to being an accessory to a conspiracy; and a builder, Robert Mericle,

who was Mr. Ciavarellas close friend, pleaded guilty to failing to report a felony,

(MISPRISION of FELONY).

Plaintiffs seek to end the biases against fathers. Children deserve equal (50%)

time with both parents. Denying custody to fathers in exchange for federal welfare

dollars is another cash for kids racketeering, bribery and extortion scheme.

Court Counsel is not content impugning the integrity of courageous Pro Per

litigants. It is also mounting a campaign4

against one of Los Angeles County Superior

Courts own Judges, Amy Pellman, for taking the county money and not fulfilling her

end of the bargain. Apparently Judge Pellman believes that children belong with their

parents. But every child not sent to foster care costs Los Angeles County Title IV-F

reimbursements. Foster Care is NOT one of the causes of action in Plaintiffs 10 cases.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3 See New York Times article at,

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/us/09judge.html?ref=markaciavarella4 See Los Angeles Times article at,

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-newton-column-dependency-court-judge-20121105,0,458283.column

!


12/16

!12

E058417!

IX. PLAINTIFFS ARE PATRIOTIC NOT VEXATIOUSPlaintiffs have filed 10 cases to adequately indicate the scope of damages

foreseen by the legislative commission (AA-276). The 10 cases are filed in 2 counties,by 3 individuals, against individuals in the Superior Court and the Second Appellate

Court, implicate both Los Angeles County and the Superior Court of Los Angeles, and

cover 8 different causes of action as sources of bias against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs

prepared an additional 6 cases against different judges but have not filed these cases

until the constitutional questions have been resolved. Respondents have demonstrated a

clear pattern of unconstitutional behavior and a systematic denial of civil rights.

Plaintiffs read the Sturgeon II decision as an invitation by the Appellate Court

for citizens to bring this kind of suit. Denial of basic civil rights and the First

Amendment petitions to redress those injuries cannot be deemed meritless or frivolous.

Consequently, Appellant also requests that Respondent not be awarded any fees

or costs.

X. CONCLUSIONAppellant requests this Court to overturn and deny the judgment by the Los

Angeles Court favoring Elia Weinbach in order to protect its county payments. If

judges truly had absolute judicial immunity, there would be no need for the

Commission on Judicial Performance or for the Caperton decision. For all of the

above stated reasons, Petitioner respectfully urges the Court to grant appropriate

relief as may be just and proper.

Dated: June 3, 2013

Respectfully submitted, __________________________________

Daniel Cooper


13/16

!13

E058417!

VERIFICATION

FORM No. 2

Verification of Pleading (Code Civ. Proc., 446)

Declaration under Penalty of Perjury Form

(Code Civ. Proc., 446, 2015.5)By Party Daniel Cooper

CASE TITLE:Daniel Cooper, an individual;

Petitioner/Appellant

v.

Elia WEINBACH, an individual;

Defendant/Respondent.

I, Daniel Cooper, in Pro Per, declare:

I am the signatory to the civil case SC113064.

I am the Petitioner and Appellant in the above-titled matter.

I have read the foregoing Reply Brief and know the contents thereof.

The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters, which are

therein stated on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe it to be

true. This verification was executed on June 3, 2013, at Los Angeles County,

California.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

_______________________________Daniel Cooper, In Pro Per1836 10th Street #BSanta Monica, CA 90404310-562-7668


14/16

!14

E058417!

CERTIFICATE OF LENGTH

I, Daniel Cooper, in Pro Per, certify pursuant to the California Rules of Court,

that the word count for this document is 3,300 words or less, excluding the tables,

this certificate, and any attachment permitted. This document was prepared in

Microsoft Word and this is the word count generated by the program for this

document.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that

the foregoing is true and correct. Executed, on June 3, 2013, at Los Angeles

County, California.

____________________________Daniel Cooper, In Pro Per1836 10th Street, #BSanta Monica, CA 90404310-562-7668


15/16

! PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL --CIVIL

DanielCooper,InPropriaPersona

AMENDED

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE

E058417 / SC113064PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: Daniel Cooper, an IndividualRESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: Elia Weinbach, an Individual

I am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My residence address is

Anthony Locatelli, 4084 Mt Acadia Blvd, San Diego, CA 92111

On June 10, 2013,I served on the interested parties in this action (SEE ATTACHEDSERVICE LIST with type and address) the following document(s)

APPELLANTS REPLY TO RESPONDENTS BRIEF with Amended Proof of

Service

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that theforegoing is true and correct.

Executed on June 10, 2013 at San Diego, California,

________________________________Anthony Locatelli


16/16

! PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL --CIVIL

DanielCooper,InPropriaPersona

SERVICE LIST

E058417 / SC113064PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: Daniel Cooper, an IndividualRESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: Elia Weinbach, an Individual

e-Mail Service Co-Appellant:Dennis Ettlin27222 Paseo LomitaSan Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

[email protected]

e-Mail Service -- Defendant:Kevin M. McCormickBenton, Orr, Duval and Buckingham39 North California Street, Post Office Box 1178Ventura, California [email protected]

Mail - Courtesy CopyHon. Robert H. OBrienSuperior Court of California County of Los AngelesStanley Mosk Courthouse111 N. Hill StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

e-Filing Supreme Court of California

See Amended Proof of Service with

Fourth Appellate Court forcopy of email confirmation.

Documents

Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos