09-10-25 THE BRANDEIS BRIEF & THE PROSPECT OF RICO INDICTMENTS AT THE LA SUPERIOR COURT

A. Alleged Racketeering at theLA Superior Court, and the use of Brandeis Brief type arguments in RICO prosecution...

The Brandeis Brief avoided arguments based on legal theories. Instead - Louis Brandeis used health statistics and pure statistical arguments to conclude the destructive effects of sweatshop work practices on workers health.

.

Obviously, I am not an attorney, not even by a long shot, therefore, I do not know the law. However, I do know a bit of statistics... and therefore - my fondness for the Brandeis Brief...With that, in discussing racketeering, one must recall the four basic elements stated in the law as required for adjudication, which were continuously reshaped by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

.

B. Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) 18 USC § 1961–8

.

RICO was written in broad terms. To state a claim, a plaintiff must allege four elements: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.[1] Each element of a RICO claim requires additional analysis: an “enterprise” is marked by association and control; a “pattern” requires a showing of “continuity”—continuous and related behavior that amounts to, or poses a threat of, continued criminal violations; and “racketeering activity” involves the violation of designated federal laws.[2]

In addition, a civil RICO litigation plaintiff must allege that he was injured in his business or property “by reason of” a violation of RICO’s substantive provisions.[3] This “by reason of” language provides the basis for the proximate cause requirement, established by the Supreme Court in Holmes and amplified in Anza [4]and Mohawk Indus [5].

[1] See Kenda Corp. v. Pot O’Gold Money Leagues, Inc., 329 F.3d 216, 233 (1st Cir. 2003).

[2] See Giulliano v. Fulton, 399 F.3d 381, 388 (1st Cir. 2005).

[3] 18 USC § 1964(c).

[4] Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 2006 DJDAR 6857 (June 5, 2006)

[5] Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Williams126 S. Ct. 2016 (2006).

.

.

.

Fortunately, one can also find today Prosecutor's Handbook and Prosecutor's Workbooks for organizing RICO evidence and RICO Briefs. Therefore, even a layperson could get some idea of what it takes to indict and prosecute on RICO charges. With all that - It appears that there is high likelihood that a professional prosecutor, upon review of such cases and such evidence as is now available against judges of the LA Superior Court, would find the LA Superior Court and its judges a case that has merit, and high public policy interest in immediate investigation and prosecution. In that respect, there is no doubt that Att RICHARD FINE's insistence on his principles, and the advertising that he generated for alleged corruption at the LA Superior Court, already generated substantial results, connections were formed, and more victims came forward than ever before...

.

After all, the stated policy of FBI, announced most recently in December 2008, in New York, in relationship to the indictment of a former NY State Supreme Court Justice Spargo was as follows:

.

"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society".

.

.

No reasonable honest person would challenge that statement...

.

In discussing the issue with attorneys, one who claimed to study RICO under a professor who helped draft the law, stated with full confidence that by law, RICO could never be applied against judges or any government agency. That was of course untrue.

Judge Richard LeFevour was sentenced to twelve

years in prison for his role in the Greylord scandal,

which revealed corruption within Cook County's

court system. He was convicted of taking thousands

of dollars in bribes to fix traffic cases. (Tribune

photo by Frank Hanes)

.

Judges were indicted and prosecuted pursuant to RICO both in San Diego - Robert Aguilar - former Presiding Judge of the U.S.District Court, and and in San Diego, California - two former San Diego California State judges - G. Dennis Adams and James Malkus, and a prominent lawyer were indicted of federal racketeering and mail fraud, while the former Presiding Judge entered a plea bargain.

.

.

Judges and attorneys were indicted and prosecuted per RICO also in Cook County (Chicago) Illinois - in Operation Greylord. A total of 92 people were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, ten deputy sheriffs, eight policemen, eight court officials, and a member of the Illinois Legislature. Most recently - in Pennsylvania, two judges were indicted per RICO in relationship to false convictions of juveniles for kickbacks from juvenile hall.

And even here, in Los Angeles, in the wake of the Rampart scandal, U.S. District Court, LA, allowed civil RICO litigations against police. In fact, the larger claim underlying the case of Atty RICHARD FINE and all the rest of them - is that the Rampart scandal involved the court to no lesser degree than the LAPD. However, in absurd that is documented in detail by now, Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR, who is alleged as one of the Central figures of the LA-JR, presided in the First Rampart Trial (2000),. In fact, derailing that trial is probably what she is best known for. When you read the reports from the period, knowing what you know today, you must wonder about the role that she played in the Rampart-scandal and the false convictions and sentencing in that case.

.

C. Applying a Brandeis Brief in Marina v LA County to argue racketeering by JOSHUA ROSEN, on behalf of DEL REY VENTURE, and DEL REY VENTURE NORTH, by Judge DAVID YAFFE, Deputy Clerk CONNIE HUDSON, and Clerk of the Court JOHN A CLARKE - Beyond reasonable Doubt.

.

Each of the 8 papers with the defective or non-existent Proofs of Service, was filed by either an experienced licensed attorney, or by a Judge, and was reviewed by a Deputy-Clerk of the LA Superior Court. Some of these papers were later the foundation for other papers, and one must assume that they were then reviewed again. Some of these papers were then filed with a secondary court, and surely had to be reviewed again by Deputy-Clerks, and Law Clerks, and Judges... However, here, we examine only the initial review at the time of filing.

.

Initially, attempt would be made to assess the situation based on my personal experience, but comments would be most welcome: My chance to file a paper with no POS, or with mismatched dates of POS and the paper, or title of the paper and the POS was close to none... Zilch. Nada. The clerks were no lawyers, and therefore, and they never tried to assess my arguments when I came to file papers in court. They would engage mostly in inspection of the paper On Its Face - First the cover page - did I list the correct caption, did I list the correct department and date of a hearing, did I list the correct party designations... Second - once they inspected the cover page, they would immediately flip to the two pages with signatures - the brief and the declaration, to inspect that they were original "wet" signatures in my name, Thirs - from there they would flip straight to the POS - to check the title, date, and signature on it.

.

I never tried to file with no POS, but it would be sufficient to present to the clerk the copy instead of the original of the POS, where the signature was not "wet" - to have a paper denied filing. In short - my chance to get away with such defects was infinitesimally small. But for argument sake, let's assume that the average chance was 1:10... That is - if a person tried 10 times, that person would be able to get away with it once, or if 10 different persons tried, only one would accomplish the task.

.

And as for the chance of pulling it off, eight (8) times in a row... It's 1:10E8, or 1:10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10, which is the same as 1:100,000,000, or one in one hundred millions. I'd argue - that is Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Please be reminded that the odds of pulling off after that the filing by attorney who was not attorney of record, of false record in the U.S. Court - by Atty KEVIN MCCORMICK, which compounded the odds, was not at all accounted for. I would argue that on statistics alone, racketeering could be proven relative to conduct of the parties listed above.

Some of the case that RICO was prosecuted over the years involved reliance on Mail Fraud or on Deprivation of the Implied Rights for Honest Services as Predicated Acts. Some criticism was raised regarding overuse of such claims by public prosecutors. That is not the case here. The claims are of a textbook racket... Of course there was alleged mailfraud anytime notices were mailed out. But even without that you could find here plenty of predicated acts of various kinds.

.

D. Application of a Brandeis Brief in Samaan v Zernik to argue racketeering by Atty JOHN AMBERG, Atty JENNA MOLDAWSKY (Bryan Cave, LLP) Country Financail Corporation (CFC), Bank of America Corporation (BAC), SANDOR SAMUELS - Associate General Counsel,BAC, Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR, Judge JOHN SEGAL, Judge TERRY FRIEDMAN, and Clerk of the Court - JOHN A CLARKE - Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

.

In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) CFC, and later BAC appeared in court easily 20 times, and they may appear additional times in the near future... In all these instances, they filed papers under the invalid party designation "Non Party", while the court designated it interchangeably "Defendant", "Plaintiff", "Cross Defendant", "Real Parties in Interest", "Intervenor", and more... I actually asked the Clerk once, for an explanation for this discrepancy, why the court constantly changes the party designations of Countrywide/Bank of America.... He was honest enough to tell me the reason: When entering the the party designations, he had to choose a party designation from the menu offered to him by Sustain, the case management system... and "Non Party" was not one of them, since it was a fictitious party designation... Therefore, each time selected a different party designation from the menu to file the Countrywide/ Bank of America papers...

.

OK, let's look at it... what would be my chance to file a paper under party designation "Swamp-fox", or "Cat-bird", and have the Clerk knowingly choose a different party designation to enter it under... and get away with it... I never tried it, but I would say... NO CHANCE IN A LIFETIME... For argument sake, let's assume that the average chance was 1:10... That is - if a person tried 10 times, that person would be able to get away with it once, or if 10 different persons tried, only one would accomplish the task.

.

And as for the chance of pulling it off, twenty (20) times in a row...It's 1:10E20, or 1:10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10, which is the same as 100,000,000,000,000,000,000, or one in one hundred million millions. I forgot the name for a million millions. Regardless, I'd argue - that is Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Please be reminded that the odds would be even smaller, since here again, we had attorneys who were not Counsel of Records falsely filing as Counsel of Record, and we had all executable orders filed with no POS, or mismatched dates of POS..., all the fingerprints of the LA-JR...and all of which would compound the odds, but were not at all accounted for...I would argue that on statistics alone, racketeering could be proven relative to conduct of the parties listed above.

.

E. How do these cases compare?

.

I was asked at times to compare the racket that I allege in the LA Superior Court to the precedents. However, once you start reading and studying these cases, you realize that there is much more to them than was published, both prior to indictment and after indictment. Typically, there are many more people involved in various levels than the number of people that are eventually indicted. Moreover, it is often the leaders of the racket that get away with plea bargains... for various reasons,,,

.

With all these disclaimers stated once could grade the cases relative to the scope of corruption as follows:

1) San Jose, California - only one judge indicted, and it was not clear that any other judge was involved.

.

2) Pennsylvania - the recent case in Pennsylvania is stunning in its criminality - false convictions and sentencing of juveniles for cash. However, one should recall that similar situations were part of the Rampart scandal. They are difficult to find in the written reports. However, one must notice that the Consent Decree was framed around Deprivation of Civil Rights- of Juveniles - under the Color of Law, not the standard Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law (42 USC § 14141 and 42 USC §1983, respectively). The difference between Pennsylvania and California, though, is that in Pennsylvania panels were immediately instituted to initiate corrective action. IN California - the Rampart FIPs are still falsely imprisoned...

.

3) San Diego, California - Many more were involved than the two judges who were indicted, The Presiding Judge, who ran the operation, for example, was the one who signed the plea bargain...

.

4) Cook County, Illinois - in Cook County, we move to the National League, here there was a large number of judge and other personnel involved. They streamlined anything from Parking Tickets to Capital Cases.

.

5) Los Angeles County, California- the case in Los Angeles Califonia would be described as "New Vistas in Corruption":

a) The main difference - it relied on computers. Therefore, it was at a much higher level of sophistication, much more elaborate, included more people...

b) The biggest difference is that all the alleged crimes were registered in court records... There is no need and there would be no need for any uncover sting operation. The LA Superior Court is hiding the dockets for the past 25 years for a reason - they read as uncatalogued of alleged criminalities. Line by line. For example - the conduct of Judge JOHN SEGAL and all those who colluded with him in Galdjie v Darwish I did need to interview BARBARA DARWISH to figure out the scope of the alleged criminality. However, even if I never managed to meet her - there was no way to explain that docket (Register of Actions) as based on honest conduct of the judiciary... in that case alone, there were probably a dozen judges involved...

c) The true story of the Rampart Scandal will finally be exposed once and for all...

d) It would also I believe be the first ever prosecution of a network based Organize Crime - loosely organized white collar crime.

e) It involved large corporations, including Countrywide and Bank of America.

f) In short - it is a humongous affair compared to anything ever dealt with in the U.S.

Here too - Atty RICHARD FINE must be remembered - because it would be his case that would not allow the FBI and U.S. Dept of Justice to continue the cover up. He could leave his jail any day, but submitting to alleged corrupt Judge DAVID YAFEE and Commissioner MURRAY GROSS. However, he protested by not getting out of jail, but sticking it out.