Family Law Reform

Flag-with-Faces_Family-Law-Reform

A forum for ideas
to reform U.S. Family Laws.


September 2021

Proposed California Legislation to Compensate Victims of Judicial Corruption and End Disparity in Judicial Compensation Caused by SBX 2 11.

If you are in California, please consider contacting your elected state representatives regarding proposed legislation drafted by Richard Fine, legal expert and victim of judicial corruption.

The legislation provides for direct payments to the “victims” in set amounts from the State Controller. It circumvents the judiciary and avoids the judicial defenses of: (1) absolute judicial immunity; and (2) qualified immunity. It pays out the money from the budgets allocated to the judiciary and the counties, removing any new cost to the taxpayers.

The legislation removes the problem of disparity in judicial compensation created by SBX 2 11, Section 2 which made the unconstitutional “supplemental or local judicial benefits” lawful. The disparity left Superior Court judges in counties like Santa Barbara who did not receive any “benefits” receiving their legislated State salary and Superior Court judges in Los Angeles County receiving their legislated State salary plus: (1) 39% of their legislated State salary was “benefits”; and (2) contributions to their 401k or 457k retirement accounts.

The alternative to raising all the Superior Court judge’s salaries would be to repeal Section 2 of SBX 2 11 to be effective as of the end of the current term of each Superior Court judge. This will take up to six years after the effective date after the passage of the legislation, the term of the most recently elected Superior Court judge receiving “benefits.”

The proposed legislation is as follows:

BILL NUMBER:
BILL TEXT

CHAPTER
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR
PASSED THE SENATE
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY [to be inserted]

September , 2021
An act:
(1) responding to President Biden’s June 3, 2021 Memorandum declaring Corruption to be a National Security Issue;
(2) responding to the California Court’s holdings in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 191 Cal.App.4th 344, 355-356 (2010) and Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles,242 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1450-1451 (2015) that the disparity in judicial compensation caused by “supplemental or local judicial benefits” paid by counties or courts to State Superior Court judges held unconstitutional in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) and made temporarily legal in Section 2, of SBX 2 11, were the Legislature’s responsibility to solve;
(3) establishing compensation for victims of judicial corruption and executive abuse of power in the courts by:
(a) amending SBX 2 11, Section 2 to create a uniform pay schedule for California Superior Court judges to commence at 39% greater than the 2021 starting level to remove the discrepancy created by unconstitutional “supplemental or local judicial benefits” paid by Los Angeles County and in lesser amounts by other counties to 90% of California’s Superior Court judges from approximately 1985 onwards; and
(b) establishing compensation to the hundreds of thousands of victims of judicial corruption and executive abuse of power in the courts as demonstrated by the by California Superior Court Judges, Court of Appeal Justices and Supreme Court Justices’ egregious treatment of:
(i) Richard Lee Abrams;
(ii) Stephan Brooks;
(iii) Richard Isaac Fine; and
(iv) Georges Marciano.

On June 3, 2021 the White House released President Biden’s Memorandum declaring Corruption to be a National Security Issue stating in relevant part:
“My Administration will lead efforts to promote good governance; bring transparency to the United States and global financial systems; prevent and combat corruption at home and abroad; and make it increasingly difficult for corrupt actors to shield their activities.” (Emphasis added.);

Victim’s compensation has and is being denied by:
(1) the common law defense of absolute judicial immunity protecting State judges and those working directly for State judges;
(2) the common law defense of qualified immunity protecting political entities and those working for political entities; and
(3) legislation such as SBX 2 11 which does not mention victims of judicial corruption but specifically protects:
(a) State judges paid “supplemental or local judicial benefits” paid by counties and courts in addition to the State judges’ State compensation; and
(b) executive actors such as counties and their employees who paid State judges “supplemental or local judicial benefits”.

This legislation rectifies these problems of judicial corruption and executive abuse of power in the courts.
This legislation:
(1) equalizes judicial compensation to all California Superior Court judges; and
(2) establishes an administrative procedure outside the court system to award victims compensation with predetermined dollar amounts to be paid directly to the victims by the State Controller as follows:
(a) amending SBX 2 11, Section 2 by deleting the present language and replacing it with “the base compensation for State Superior Court judges is set at the base compensation for the year 2021 plus 39% of such to be adjusted each successive year in conjunction with cost of living changes;
(b) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Section 8 establishing payments to the victims of the unlawful payments to State Superior Court judges by counties and courts, Court of Appeal Justices, and California Supreme Court Justices who received such while they were State Superior Court judges to be made by the State Controller from the annual funds budgeted to the State Court System and Counties;
(c) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Section 9 establishing payments to victims of judicial officers (Commissioners, Temporary Judges, Superior Court Judges, Court of Appeal Justices State Supreme Court Justices):
(i) who entered orders and judgments after deemed to have consented to their disqualification under CCP Section 170.3(c)(4);
(ii) were disqualified under CCP Section 170.1; or
(iii) failed to disclose information required under Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(2) and failed to disqualify themselves under Canon 3E(1);
(d) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Section 10 setting payments to be made to the victims of judicial corruption in Sections 8 and 9 by the State Controller each year from moneys allocated to the Judicial Branch of the State Government with a minimum of $50 million per year allocated to the State Controller to administer the program from moneys allocated to the Judicial Branch of the State Government each year as follows:
(i) $1 million tax free for each year the defamation (including libel) existed or continues to exist;
(ii) $10 million tax free per year for each year unlawful incarceration existed or continues to exist;
(iii) $10 million tax free for fraud upon the court;
(iv) $10 million tax free for fraud;
(v) $10 million tax free for intentional interference with contract;
(vi) $10 million tax free for negligent interference with contract;
(vii) $10 million tax free for intentional interference with prospective business advantage;
(viii) $10 million tax free for negligent interference with prospective business advantage;
(ix) $10 million tax free for intentional infliction of emotional distress;
(x) $10 million tax free for negligent infliction of emotional distress;
(xi) $10 million tax free for any other cause of action not mentioned above;
(xii) amount of loss incurred due to action of the “Judicial Officer” (Commissioners, Temporary Judges, Superior Court Judges, Court of Appeal Justices State Supreme Court Justices); and
(xiii) additionally for attorneys who brought cases against counties or the courts of the State of California:
(aa) one third (33%) of damages alleged or shown in any case prior to trial; and
(bb) one half (50%) of damages awarded at trial and then denied or overturned by any panel of a State Court of Appeal or Appellate Division of a Superior Court upon which a justice or judge who violated or is violating paragraph(2)(a)-(c)above was or is a member; and
(e) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Sections 11-17 to directly compensate the following individual victims as egregious examples of the various categories of judicial corruption:
(i) Richard Lee Abrams, Stephan Brooks, and Richard Isaac Fine for the category allowing County or court payments to judges to control judicial decisions;
(ii) Richard Lee Abrams and Georges Marciano for the category allowing antisemitism, religion, race, gender or sexuality to control judicial decisions;
(iii) Stephan Brooks for the category allowing status of representation, such as self- representation before the court to control judicial decisions;
(iv) Richard Lee Abrams, Stephan Brooks, Richard Isaac Fine and Georges Marciano for the category of judges who were disqualified under law and did not leave the case; and
(v) Richard Lee Abrams, Stephan Brooks, Richard Isaac Fine, and Georges Marciano for the category of a combination of any of the above or other unlawful factors to control judicial decisions.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
This legislation addresses and responds:
(1) to the June 3, 2021 President Biden Memorandum declaring Corruption to be a National Security Issue stating in relevant part:
“My Administration will lead efforts to promote good governance; bring transparency to the United States and global financial systems; prevent and combat corruption at home and abroad; and make it increasingly difficult for corrupt actors to shield their activities.” (Emphasis added.);
(2) to the failure of SBX 2 11 to resolve the disparity in judicial compensation caused by “supplemental or local judicial benefits” paid by counties or courts to Superior Court Judges;
(3) to the failure of SBX 2 11 to establish any means of compensation to the victims of judicial corruption:
(a) while making the “unconstitutional (unlawful) payments” legal in SBX 2 11, Section 2;
(b) while giving the perpetrators of unconstitutional (unlawful) payments to judges and the judges who received such payments retroactive immunity from civil liability, criminal prosecution and disciplinary action for all acts occurring prior to July 1, 2008 in SBX 2 11, Section 5;
(4) to the failure of SBX 2 11 to establish any means of compensation to the victims of “judicial officers” (Commissioners, Temporary Judges, Superior Court Judges, Court of Appeal Justices State Supreme Court Justices):
(a) who entered orders and judgments after deemed to have consented to their disqualification under CCP Section 170.3(c)(4);
(b) who were disqualified under CCP Section 170.1; or
(c) who failed to disclose information required under Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(2) and failed to disqualify themselves under Canon 3E(1);and
(5) to the failure of SBX 2 11 to address egregious examples of victims of judicial corruption as:
(a) Richard Lee Abrams and Georges Marciano examples of judicial bias of antisemitism, representing the category of bias against religion, race, gender, national origin, etc.;
(b) Stephan Brooks example of judicial bias against self- represented litigants;
(c) Richard Isaac Fine example of the retaliation of the Los Angeles Superior Court judges and court commissioners who:
(i) filed false charges against Richard Isaac Fine State Bar Number 055259 on two occasions and admitted to the Public Information Officer of the Los Angeles Superior Court:
(aa) a “visceral hatred against Fine”;
(bb) “seeking of revenge against Fine”;
(cc) a “want to silence Fine”; and
(dd) a “want to take Fine out of communication” amongst other things “for his keeping the issue of county payments to the judges before the courts and the legislature” and the errors of the California Supreme Court which institutionalized such retaliation;
(ii) refusing to remove himself from a case after not responding to a disqualification and being deemed to have consented to the disqualification under California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 170.3(c)(4), then entering an unlawful judgment against Fine, holding Fine in Contempt and illegally incarcerating him in solitary, coercive confinement in the Los Angeles County Jail for 18 months before admitting his error and retiring; and
(iii) holding Fine in contempt, the California Court of Appeal affirming the contempt, and then voiding and annulling the Order of Contempt against Fine after the U.S. District Court in Fine’s appeal from the decision of the California Court of Appeal entered an Order to Show Cause Why a Writ of Habeas Corpus Should not Issue Against the Superior Court Voiding and Annulling the Order of Contempt against Fine.
Fiscal Effect: The judicial branch budget is approximately 1% of the State General Fund. In terms of the State General Fund, and the $76 Billion surplus, the largest in California history, now is the time to implement this equalization of State judicial compensation and compensation to the victims of judicial corruption.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
This legislation addresses and responds:
(1) to President Biden’s June 3, 2021 Memorandum declaring Corruption to be a National Security Issue stating in relevant part:
“My Administration will lead efforts to promote good governance; bring transparency to the United States and global financial systems; prevent and combat corruption at home and abroad; and make it increasingly difficult for corrupt actors to shield their activities.” (Emphasis added.); and
(2) to the problem of judicial corruption and executive abuse of power in the court system by:
(a) equalizing judicial compensation to all California Superior Court judges; and
(b) establishing a “victims of judicial corruption and executive abuse of power in the court system compensation” procedure outside the court system with predetermined dollar amounts to be paid directly to the “victims” by the State Controller;
(3) to the failure of SBX 2 11 to establish any means of compensation to the victims of judicial corruption and executive abuse of power in the court system:
(a) while giving the perpetrators of unconstitutional payments to judges and the judges who received such payments in SBX 2 11, Section 5 retroactive immunity from civil liability, criminal prosecution and disciplinary action for all acts occurring prior to July 1, 2008;
(b) to the failure of SBX 2 11 to establish any means of compensation to the victims of judicial corruption while making the “illegal payments” legal in Section 2;
(c) to the failure of SBX 2 11 to establish any means of compensation to the victims of “judicial officers” (including but not limited to temporary judges, commissioners, Superior Court judges, Court of Appeal judge and Supreme Court justices:
(i) who entered orders and judgments after deemed to have consented to their disqualification under CCP Section 170.3(c)(4);
(ii) who were disqualified under CCP Section 170.1; or
(iii) who failed to disclose information required under Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(2) and failed to disqualify themselves under Canon 3E(1);
(d) to the unlawful acts as exemplified by the egregious examples of judicial corruption upon the following individuals:
(i) Richard Lee Abrams:
(1) The actions of Superior Court Judge John A. Toribio and the State Bar;
(ii) Stephan Brooks:
(1)The actions of Superior Court Judges Mitchell L. Beckloff, Maria Stratton and Michael C. Small;
(iii) Richard Isaac Fine:
(aa) the retaliation of the Los Angeles Superior Court judges and court commissioners who filed false charges against Richard Isaac Fine State Bar Number 055259 on two occasions and admitted to the Public Information Officer of the Los Angeles Superior Court:
(1) a “visceral hatred against Fine”;
(2) “seeking of revenge against Fine”;
(3) a “want to silence Fine”; and
(4) a “want to take Fine out of communication” amongst other things “for his keeping the issue of county payments to the judges before the courts and the legislature” and the errors of the California Supreme Court which institutionalized such retaliation; and
(bb) to the unlawful acts of the California Supreme Court which included:
(1) refusal to overturn the October 17, 2007 Involuntary Enrollment by the State Bar Court;
(2) unlawfully disbarring Richard Isaac Fine State Bar Number 055259 effective March 13, 2009 while knowing such disbarment was a sham; and
(3) denying six motions to Set Aside as Null and Void Ab Initio the March 13, 2009 Disbarment and October 17, 2007 Order of Involuntary Inactive which were not opposed by the California State Bar and “may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion” under California Rule of Court 8.54 (c)[Denials were: 3/25/20009, 1/18/2012, 2/13/2013, 6/19/2013, 6/14/2017 and the last denial being October 11, 2018] by adding Section 10 to SBX 2 11;
(cc) the unlawful acts of Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe refusing to remove himself from a case after not responding to a disqualification and being deemed to have consented to the disqualification under CCP Section 170.3(c)(4), then entering an unlawful judgment against Fine, holding Fine in Contempt and illegally incarcerating him in solitary, coercive confinement in the Los Angeles County Jail for 18 months before admitting his error and retiring;
(dd) the unlawful acts of Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell acting as a Temporary Judge holding Fine in contempt, the California Court of Appeal affirming the contempt, and then the Superior Court voiding and annulling the Order of Contempt against Fine after the U.S. District Court in Fine’s appeal from the decision of the California Court of Appeal entered an Order to Show Cause Why a Writ of Habeas Corpus Should not Issue Against the Superior Court Voiding and Annulling the Order of Contempt against Fine.
(iv) Georges Marciano:
(aa) the actions of Superior Court Judge Elizabeth White;
(4) The actions taken by the California Judiciary against victims of judicial corruption as exemplified by Richard Isaac Fine violated Article 1, Sections 1,2,3,7,17 and 26 of the California Constitution.
(5) The actions taken by the California Judiciary against victims of judicial corruption as exemplified by Richard Isaac Fine violated:
(a) Article 4, Section 18 (b) “misconduct in office” by engaging in conduct which punished lawyers for following their oath to uphold the constitution and laws of the United States and the State of California; and
(b) Article 6, Section 14 – “Decisions of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal that determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated.” by deciding motions affecting the jurisdiction of the court without reasons stated.
(6) The victims of judicial corruption cannot obtain relief from the actions taken against them by the California Judiciary as no relief is available under either California or federal law due to either:
(a) lack of jurisdiction;
(b) absolute judicial immunity;
(c) the Eleventh Amendment; and/or
(d) bias of the judiciary;
(7) The only relief available to the victims of judicial corruption is through action of the Legislature and the Governor by amending SBX 2 11; and
(8) It is imperative the Legislature and the Governor uphold the United States and California Constitutions, the integrity of the judicial system and underscore the commitment to never allow those who pursue the goals of such ever be punished for such pursuit.

SECTION 2. The following is added to the laws of the State of California:

(1) amending SBX Section 2 to create a uniform pay schedule for California Superior Court judges to commence at 39% greater than the 2021 starting level to remove the discrepancy created by unconstitutional “local or supplemental judicial benefits” paid by Los Angeles County and in lesser amounts by other counties to 90% of California’s Superior Court judges from approximately 1985 onwards;
(2) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Section 8 establishing payments be made by the State Controller from the annual funds budgeted to the State Court System and Counties to the victims of the unlawful payments by counties and courts to:
(a) State Superior Court judges; and
(b) Court of Appeal Justices and California Supreme Court Justices who received such while they were State Superior Court judges;
(3) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Section 9 establishing payments to victims of judicial officers (Commissioners, Temporary Judges, Superior Court Judges, Court of Appeal Justices and Supreme Court Justices):
(a) who entered orders and judgments after deemed to have consented to their disqualification under CCP Section 170.3(c)(4);
(b) who were disqualified under CCP Section 170.1; and
(c) who failed to disclose information required under Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(2) and failed to disqualify themselves under Canon 3E(1;
(4) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Section 10 setting payments to be made to the victims of judicial corruption in Sections 8 and 9 by the State Controller each year from moneys allocated to the Judicial Branch of the State Government with a minimum of $50 million per year allocated to the State Controller to administer the program from moneys allocated to the Judicial Branch of the State Government as follows:
(a) $1 million tax free per year for each year defamation (including libel) existed or continues to exist;
(b) $10 million tax free per year for each year unlawful incarceration existed or continues to exist;
(c) $10 million tax free for fraud upon the court;
(d) $10 million tax free for fraud;
(e) $10 million tax free for intentional interference with contract;
(f) $10 million tax free for negligent interference with contract;
(g) $10 million tax free for intentional interference with prospective business advantage;
(h) $10 million tax free for negligent interference with prospective business advantage;
(i) $10 million tax free for intentional infliction of emotional distress;
(j) $10 million tax free for negligent infliction of emotional distress;
(k) $10 million tax free for any other cause of action not mentioned above;
(l) amount of loss incurred due to action of the “Judicial Officer”; and
(m) for attorneys who brought cases against counties or the courts of the State of California:
(i) one third (33%) of damages alleged or shown in any case prior to trial; and
(ii) one half (50%) of damages awarded at trial and then denied or overturned by any State Court of Appeal or Appellate Division of a Superior Court upon which a judge or justice who violated or is violating paragraph(2)(a)-(c)above;
(5) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Section 11 to SBX 2 11 awarding Richard Isaac Fine to be immediately paid by the California State Controller tax free from funds allocated to the State Courts, State Judiciary and counties (where a county was a defendant in a particular case from which the award is being made):
(a) Defamation: $20 million tax free for the publication of Fine v. Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.4th 651 (2002) from 2002 through 2021;
(b) Defamation: $14 million tax free for the publication of Involuntary Enrollment October 17, 2007 followed by Disbarment March 13, 2009 from 2007 through 2021, California State Bar Case No:04-O-14366;
(c) Unlawful Incarceration: $18 million for the Unlawful Solitary, Coercive, Confinement in the Los Angeles County Jail from March 9, 2009-September 17, 2010 (18 months) by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe who consented to his Disqualification in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles et al., LASC Case No. BS109420 under CCP Section 170.3(c)(4); Judge Yaffe was receiving $827,612.55 in illegal payments from Los Angeles County which he did not disclose;
(d) Fraud Upon the Court: $100 million tax free collectively representing the total for each of ten cases in which the judge or justice did not disqualify himself or herself as required by CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i-111) and or Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(1)and(2);
(e) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: $100 million tax free for each of ten cases in which the judge or justice did not disqualify himself or herself as required by CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i-111) and or Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(1)and(2);
(f) Attorney’s fees: 50% of awards on cases won at trial and overturned on appeal by disqualified judges or justices $179,500,000.00:
(i) $22,500,000.00 of the 1999 trial judgment of $45 million taken from Environmental Fund and put into Los Angeles County General Fund annually: enjoined by trial verdict with remaining money returned to Environmental Fund; Judgment now worth $1 billion; Case Amjadi and LACAOEHS v. County of Los Angeles;
(ii) $150 million 1999 of the trial judgment of $300 million taken by Los Angeles County in cash ($150 million) and loan ($150 million) from the Transportation Fund and put into the General Fund: Judgment returned to the Transportation Fund; Case Veltman v. County of Los Angeles et al; and
(iii) $7 million of the $14 million admitted at trial in 1999 to be held illegally by the office of Defendant Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti: Case Silva v. Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti;
(g) Attorney’s fees: 33% of damages alleged or shown in any case prior to trial:
(i) $214,500,000.00 of the $650 million in damages shown in a series of cases Coalition to Save the Marina and Marina Tenants Association v. County of Los Angeles et al. brought from 2001-2004 alleging in previous ten year period of time the County of Los Angeles was receiving approximately $35 million per year from lessees on County owned land while the lessees were earning approximately $350 million per year. Expert reports showed that the County should be receiving approximately $100 million per year, resulting in a loss of $65 million per year over a ten year period of time or $650 million. The Superior Court Judge Soussan G. Bruguera was receiving illegal payments of $547,232.80 from Los Angeles County and refused to recuse herself Writs of mandate were summarily denied by appellate justices and California Supreme Court justices who also had received illegal payments from LA County and other counties; and
(ii) $2,500,000.00 as a 33% fee of an estimated $7,500,000.00 damage for usurping state law on unfit vessels and for evicting live in boaters from slips in the case of Coalition to Save the Marina et al. v. County of Los Angeles, Marina Pacific Associates and Bellport Corp. where the Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle took illegal payments from LA County in the amount of $637,206.88;
(5) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Section 12 to rectify the retaliation imposed upon Richard Isaac Fine State Bar Number 055259 by the California judiciary for being the first and only attorney to expose and to seek to redress, the problem of unlawful payments to California Superior Court judges by Los Angeles County and other counties in the California Courts as follows:
(a) The October 17, 2007 Involuntary Enrollment by the State Bar Court and the March 13, 2009 Effective Disbarment of Richard Isaac Fine State Bar Number 055259 by the California Supreme Court each is Null and Void Ab Initio;
(b) All State Bar records are ordered immediately corrected to reflect the Voiding and Annulling of the October 17, 2007 Involuntary Enrollment by the State Bar Court and the March 13, 2009 Effective Disbarment of Richard Isaac Fine State Bar Number 055259 by the California Supreme Court to reflect no such actions against Richard Isaac Fine and Richard Isaac Fine being an Active Member of the State Bar at all times from October 17, 2007 without any back dues owed or CLE Requirements unfulfilled;
(c) The State Bar and the California Supreme Court are ordered to immediately notify all federal and state Courts and other entities which were notified of the October 17, 2007 Involuntary Enrollment and/or the March 13, 2009 Effective Disbarment of Richard Isaac Fine State Bar Number 055259 by the California Supreme Court of the Voiding and Annulling Ab Initio of the October 17, 2007 Involuntary Enrollment by the State Bar Court and the March 13, 2009 Effective Disbarment of Richard Isaac Fine State Bar Number 055259 by the California Supreme Court and ordered to request such court or entity adjust its records to reflect such and take any and all action to reverse any action taken against Richard Isaac Fine because of such October 17, 2007 Involuntary Enrollment and/or March 13, 2009 Effective Disbarment, including but not limited to:
(i) the State Bar of Illinois;
(ii) the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia;
(iii) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit;
(iv) the United States District Court for the Central District of California; and
(v) the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California;
(d) Richard Isaac Fine is ordered immediately enrolled as an Active Member of the California State Bar for Life with a Waiver of all Past and Future Dues and a Waiver of all Past and Future CLE Requirements effective as of October 17, 2007;
(e) The immediate Voiding, Annulling and De Publication is ordered of the decision of Fine v. Superior Court, (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 651, which was voided and annulled by the Superior Court Voiding and Annulling its underlying Order and Judgment of Contempt on September 24, 2001 in Response to the U.S. District Court’s August 12, 2002 “Stay of Execution; Order to Show Cause Re Immediately Granting Habeas Corpus Relief” in the Case of Fine v. Superior Court, USDC Case No. CV-02-4647 GLT (SLG)(2002); and
(f) The March 9, 2009 Contempt order and all other orders and judgments entered by Judge David P. Yaffe against Richard Isaac Fine in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles et al. are legislatively made null and void as Judge Yaffe did not disclose he was taking money from Los Angeles County until he admitted such on March 20, 2008 under questioning by Richard Isaac Fine, did not respond within ten days after being disqualified by Richard Isaac Fine and was deemed to have consented to such disqualification on the eleventh day after service upon him under CCP Section 170.3(c)(4) thereby voiding and annulling
any order or judgment of his from the outset of the case;
(6) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Section 13 to SBX 2 11 awarding Richard Lee Abrams State Bar Number 77258 to be immediately paid by the California State Controller tax free from funds allocated to the State Courts, State Judiciary and counties (where a county was a defendant in a particular case from which the award is being made:
(a) Defamation $2 million from the entry Involuntary Enrollment on July 17, 2020 and Disbarment on December 21, 2020 through 2021;
(b) Fraud Upon the Court: $10 million tax free representing the case in which Judge John A. Toribio made antisemitic statements about Richard Lee Abrams and did not disqualify himself as required by CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i-111) and or Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(1)and(2); and
(c) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: $10 million tax free for the case in which Judge John A. Toribio made antisemitic statements about Richard Lee Abrams and did not disqualify himself as required by CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i-111) and or Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(1)and(2);
(7) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Section 14 to rectify the antisemitism imposed upon Richard Lee Abrams State Bar Number 77258 by the California judiciary by:
(a) The July 17, 2020 Involuntary Enrollment by the State Bar Court and the December 21, 2020 Effective Disbarment of Richard Lee Abrams State Bar Number 77258 by the California Supreme Court each is Null and Void Ab Initio;
(b) All State Bar records are ordered immediately corrected to reflect the Voiding and Annulling of the July 17, 2020 Involuntary Enrollment by the State Bar Court and the December 21, 2020 Effective Disbarment of Richard Lee Abrams State Bar Number 77258 by the California Supreme Court to reflect no such actions against Richard Lee Abrams and Richard Lee Abrams being an Active Member of the State Bar at all times from July 17, 2020 without any back dues owed or CLE Requirements unfulfilled;
(c) The State Bar and the California Supreme Court are ordered to immediately notify all federal and state Courts and other entities which were notified of the July 17, 2020 Involuntary Enrollment and/or the December 21, 2020 Effective Disbarment of Richard Lee Abrams State Bar Number 77258 by the California Supreme Court of the Voiding and Annulling Ab Initio of the July 17, 2020 Involuntary Enrollment by the State Bar Court and the December 21, 2020 Effective Disbarment of Richard Lee Abrams State Bar Number 77258 by the California Supreme Court and ordered to request such court or entity adjust its records to reflect such and take any and all action to reverse any action taken against Richard Lee Abrams because of such July 17, 2020 Involuntary Enrollment and/or December 21, 2020 Effective Disbarment;
(d) Richard Lee Abrams is ordered immediately enrolled as an Active Member of the California State Bar for Life with a Waiver of all Past and Future Dues and a Waiver of all Past and Future CLE Requirements effective as of July 17, 2020;
(8) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Section 15 to SBX 2 11 awarding Georges Marciano to be immediately paid by the California State Controller tax free from funds allocated to the State Courts, State Judiciary and counties (where a county was a defendant or had an interest in a particular case from which the award is being made, in particular a county employee testifying in the case) based upon Judge Elizabeth White’s not disqualifying herself as required by CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) and/or Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(1)and(2)at the outset of the cases of Marciano v. Fahs et al and Marciano v. Iskowitz et al:
(a) Defamation $12 million from 2009 through 2021 in 2009 State Superior Court Judge Elizabeth White:
(i) made antisemitic and other defamatory statements against Georges Marciano in the case of Marciano v. Fahs et al.: (1) referring to him as an “eel” an antisemitic reference going back to the serpent statements in the French Dreyfus case referring to Jews as snakes and allowing counsel to refer to him as a “rattlesnake”; (2) referring to him as “paranoid”; and (3) referring to him as having “other emotional issues”;
(ii) made defamatory statements against George Marciano in the case of Marciano v. Iskowitz et al.;
(iii) additionally on separate grounds she was not allowed to be the trial judge on each of the cases remanded by the respective state Courts of Appeal for retrial on the damage portions of each of the cases;
(b) Fraud Upon the Court: $10 million tax free representing the cases of Marciano v. Fahs et al and Marciano v. Iskowitz et al in which Judge White made antisemitic and other defamatory statements about Georges Marciano and complained about his exercising his First Amendment Right to “picket the courthouse”;
(c) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: $10 million tax free representing the cases of Marciano v. Fahs et al and Marciano v. Iskowitz et al in which Judge White made antisemitic and other defamatory statements about Georges Marciano and complained about his exercising his First Amendment Right to “picket the courthouse”;
(d) Marciano’s Lost Monies due to actions of Judge Elizabeth White $260.3 million:
(i) The California Court of Appeal reduced the damage judgement in the Marciano v. Fahs et al. cross complaint against Georges Marciano to $50 million if accepted by the five cross complainants, if not the case would be retried before a judge other than Judge White;
(ii) The California Court of Appeal remanded the $55 million damage award to be retried before a judge other than Judge White in the Marciano v. Iskowitz et al. cross complaint;
(iii) The United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disregarded each of these decisions in the involuntary bankruptcy instituted against George Marciano by the “Fahs Creditors” leaving the $260.3 million damage awards in place.
(9) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Section 16 to SBX 2 11 awarding Stephan Brooks to be immediately paid by the California State Controller tax free from funds allocated to the State Courts, State Judiciary and counties (where a county was a defendant or had an interest in a particular case from which the award is being made) based upon California Superior Court Judges Mitchell L. Beckloff, Maria E. Stratton (now Associate Justice California Second District Court of Appeal), Michael C. Small and others not disqualifying themselves as required by CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) and/or Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(1)and(2) at the outset of the cases of:(a) Estate of Sherrell Atwood, Deceased filed January 17, 2007 (a) probate case which: (1) was not mandatorily dismissed for failure to timely file an initial accounting; (2) did not qualify for probate as it was below the minimum dollar requirement; and (3) never claimed the property located at 8708 12th Avenue, Inglewood, CA 90305 as part of the Estate); (b)In re Trust of Sireaner Townsend, filed October 24, 2008, a probate case filed by Maurice Smith and Clifford Townsend challenging Stephan Brooks as the sole heir as the trust of Sireaner Townsend in which the property located at 8708 12th Avenue, Inglewood, CA 90305 was the asset of the Trust of Sireaner Townsend; the case was settled but the settlement never approved by Judge Beckloff, the case has never been dismissed; (c)In re Sireaner Townsend Decedent filed September 10, 2009, a probate case filed by Maurice Smith and Clifford Townsend challenging Stephan Brooks as the sole beneficiary of the Pour Over Will of Sireaner Townsend never prosecuted by Maurice Smith and Clifford Townsend and never dismissed by Judge Beckloff; and (d) Paco Michelle Atwood, Administrator of the Estate of Sherrell Atwood v. Stephan Brooks filed April 12, 2013, a partition case in which the Estate of Sherrell Atwood did not own part of the subject property located at 8708 12th Avenue, Inglewood, CA 90305:
(a) Fraud Upon the Court: $10 million tax free representing the cases of Estate of Sherrell Atwood, Deceased, Trust of Sireaner Townsend, Sireaner Townsend Decedent and Estate of Sherrell Atwood v. Stephan Brooks in which Judges Beckloff and Stratton received “supplemental local judicial benefits” from Los Angeles County prior to and after July 1, 2008 and Judge Small received “supplemental local judicial benefits” from Los Angeles County from 2015 and each judge was biased against Stephan Brooks and in favor of Paco Michelle Atwood, Maurice Smith and Clifford Townsend based upon such payments and their bias against self-represented litigants (Stephan Brooks); and
(10) amending SBX 2 11 by adding Section 17 to rectify the bias against Stephan Brooks as a self-represented litigant by:
(a) voiding and annulling all decisions of the Superior Court judges in the cases of: (a) Estate of Sherrell Atwood, Deceased, other than the closing of the case for failure to file an accounting in July, 2007 and by order in October, 2018; (b) Trust of Sireaner Townsend with the result of dismissing the case and leaving the Trust as the sole owner of the property located at 8708 12th Avenue, Inglewood, CA 90305 and dismissing the case; (c)Sireaner Townsend Decedent with the result of dismissing the case and leaving Stephan Brooks as the sole beneficiary of the Sireaner Townsend Pour Over Will; and (d) Paco Michelle Atwood, Administrator of the Estate of Sherrell Atwood v. Stephan Brooks other than the April 13, 2015 Stipulation Re: Validity of Budget Finance Company’s Deed of Trust showing Joint Tenancy between Sireaner Townsend and Sherrell Atwood, the failure to mandatorily dismiss case on April 17, 2018 and dismissing the case for failure to bring to trial within five years; and
(b) ordering null and void the sale of the property located at 8708 12th Avenue, Inglewood, CA 90305 ordered by the Superior Court on July 15, 2021 in the partition case of Paco Michelle Atwood, Administrator of the Estate of Sherrell Atwood v. Stephan Brooks.


Parental Alienation Petition Delivery to APA June 2018

Between June 6-9, 2018 Dr. Craig Childress, accompanied by Rod McCall and Wendy Perry, will hand-deliver the “Ending the Pathology of “Parental Alienation” for All Children Everywhere” petition to the APA (American Psychological Association) in Washington DC. A press conference will be held at the National Press Club Zenger Room in Washington DC on June 7, 2018, at 9:30 am. If any Divorce Corp followers have media or press contacts in the Washington DC area, please share this information and encourage them to attend the press conference.

If you would like to sign the petition to end parental alienation, please go here.

For more details on the events in Washington DC next week, check it out here.


Help uncover judicial misconduct in California, May 2016

Court Reform LLC, a San Francisco Bay Area based organization has been in the news recently for trying to bring increased transparency and accountability to the California government agency responsible for investigating and disciplining misconduct by judges – the Commission on Judicial Performance.

The organization is working with investigative reporters at a major news agency and needs cases of documented misconduct by judges in California that were reported to the Commission on Judicial Performance in which no action was taken by the agency.

If you, or someone you know, has a documented case of clear judicial misconduct in California, please contact Joe Sweeney at joe@courtreformllc.com


Let’s make child support reform happen, March 2016

Watch the latest YouTube Video from Divorce Corp on Child Support Costs, then read the letter below from Vicky Turetsky of the OCSE, and share both with your state elected officials.

This DCL is available on the OCSE website: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/justice-department-announces-resources-to-reform-practices
DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER
DCL-16-05
DATE: March 21, 2016
TO: ALL STATE AND TRIBAL IV-D DIRECTORS
RE: Justice Department Announces Resources to Reform Practices
Dear Colleague:
On March 14, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a Dear Colleague letter to state and local courts that announced a package of resources to assist state and local efforts to reform practices for assessment of ability to pay as part of enforcement efforts to collect fees and fines, as well as child support. See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-resources-assist-state-and-local-reform-fine-and-fee-practices. The resources are meant to support ongoing work of judges, courts, policymakers, program administrators, and advocates in ensuring justice for all people, regardless of financial circumstances.
One purpose of the DOJ letter is to address “some of the most common practices that run afoul of the United States Constitution and other federal laws and to assist court leadership in ensuring that courts at every level of the justice system operate fairly and lawfully.” These laws include title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, for court systems receiving federal funds. The letter also suggests alternative practices that courts can use.
Of particular interest to the child support community is DOJ’s discussion in the letter related to incarceration for nonpayment when ability to pay is at issue. Citing Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011), and other case law, the letter states that courts may not incarcerate a person for nonpayment of fees and fines without first conducting an indigency determination and establishing that the failure to pay was willful. In addition, courts must consider alternatives to incarceration for indigent defendants who are unable to pay.
The letter provides that courts also must provide meaningful notice and, in appropriate cases, counsel, when enforcing fines and fees, and must not use arrest warrants or license suspensions as a means of coercing the payment of court debt when individuals have not been afforded constitutionally adequate procedural protections. “Under the Fourteenth Amendment, defendants likewise may be entitled to counsel in civil contempt proceedings for failure to pay fines or fees. See Turner, 131 S. Ct. at 2518-19 (holding that, although there is no automatic right to counsel in civil contempt proceedings for nonpayment of child support, due process is violated when neither counsel nor adequate alternative procedural safeguards are provided to prevent incarceration for inability to pay).” See https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/832461/download.
OCSE’s Action Transmittal 12-01 provides clarity to courts regarding their legal duty to inquire about a parent’s ability to pay prior to incarceration for nonpayment, which specifically refers to the Turner v. Rogers ruling. “Civil contempt that leads to incarceration is not, nor should it be, standard or routine child support practice. By implementing procedures to individually screen cases prior to initiating a civil contempt case and providing appropriate notice to alleged contemnors concerning the nature and purpose of the proceeding, child support programs will help ensure that inappropriate civil contempt cases will not be brought. By using Turner as a guidepost and urging the adoption of, at least, minimum safeguards in all such proceedings, this [AT-12-01] builds upon the innovations already incorporated into many child support programs over the past decade to limit the need for and use of civil contempt.” In addition, OCSE Information Memorandum 12-01 suggests that states incorporate alternatives to incarceration in their program.
I hope that this information is helpful to you and your judicial partners in ensuring due process and equal protection to litigants in your caseload.
Sincerely,

Vicki Turetsky
Commissioner
Office of Child Support Enforcement


Looking For Child Custody Case Examples, February 2016:

Many of you have told Divorce Corp that you were a pro se litigant in family court. If that is you, we have just learned that an attorney in San Francisco is looking for parents who lost custody battles in California when representing themselves in court. The details are listed below. Please do not get in touch with this lawyer unless you were a pro se litigant in a child custody case and lost in California.

If you meet these criteria, how can you get involved? Read below:

A prominent San Francisco attorney who is an advocate for pro per parent rights is writing an appellate court motion in the Susan Ferris case and wants to include other examples of parents without an attorney who lost some or all of their child custody rights in court. He can only use cases which occured in California.

If you lost full or partial custody at a court hearing where you DID NOT have a lawyer and you were in CALIFORNIA, please contact attorney James Brosnahan IMMEDIATELY by phone or email. If you want to participate in this important appellate case, you need to contact him ASAP. If you don’t meet this criteria, please do not contact the attorney.

Call James Brosnahan, Morrison and Foerster Law Firm: 415-268-7000.
Ask for James Brosnahan’s office.
Or email: jbrosnahan@mofo.com

Please Share This Information With Anyone Else You Know That Meets This Criteria.


Stop by the new Family Law Reform wiki, Familypedia.

Become a member and add content or simply browse the Familypedia pages. This is a great place to share your personal experience or valuable information you have learned about family court.


Use the “Sign Up For Reform Committees” form to your right to join one of the new reform committees.

We have terrific leaders for the reform committees. Check your email for details on the leadership council for each committee. The committee leaders will be working with all committee members to establish and prioritize reform goals. If you have any questions, please email info@divorcecorp.com.


November 2014
Family Law Reform Conference Presentations