It took them some time to digest the news. They knew all along that they were deceived in litigation at the court, where they lost a 6- unit rental property at Yale Street in Santa Monica. However, they suspected that plaintiff alone was responsible for the fraud, together with his counsel, Att Mark Green (Green & Marker). They never suspected the judges...
As typical of such crimes at the LA Superior Court, the litigation fraud was not handled by one judge alone, but instead by about ten judges as a group effort. That way none of them would ever be taken to task. All of them presided with no assignment orders and with no authority at all.
The critical fraud was performed by a judge who in the computerized records was identified only as "MUNI JUDGE".
Barbara Darwish confirmed that it was Judge John Segal.
For litigation in a civil unlimited claim, on that day, in May 2002, she went for the trial at Santa Monica Superior Court, but then was told to go to the Culver City Municipal Court, At the Culver City Municipal Court, Judge John Segal conducted a sham trial by court that was the epitome of the fraud in this case.
The case - Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) is a classic case of the Enterprise Track of the Los Angeles Superior Court- cases that may look perfectly fine as cases of the court, but in fact are anything but...
2 comments:
This is all interesting and very important, but how can readers verify your claims? I'd appreciate more information in the entries or hyperlinks to where readers can find details and proof. To take one of the easier examples, everyone knows the Los Angeles courts have numerous unwritten rules, but what makes this practice illegal, and how do you know the courts use secret rules? If you discuss these matters in your briefs, you might consider actually posting some of them in your blog. Copy/paste works passably: you only lose some formatting.
Stephen R. Diamond
http://kanBARoo.blogspot.com
srdiamond@gmail.com
Judicialwatch.org
Fulldisclosure.net
AHRCweb site
Post a Comment