RE: October-December 2000 - Alleged Racketeering that was the subject matter of the First Rampart Trial, and obstruction/perversion of justice in the trial itslef, where she falsely presided as a judge.
The basic claim is that once the evidence from the civil court is reviewed, anybody in his right mind would demand to reopen the Rampart investigation with Judge Jacqueline Connor as the main suspect of racketeering that ended up in the false imprisonment of thousands, who have never been released to this date. Maybe Rafael Perez would finally take the stand...
A. EVIDENCE PRIMARILY FROM CIVIL COURTS:
Impact on Legal Professionals
My first attorney Charles Cummings, I guess got intimidated, and never disclosed to me the fraud by Countrywide and never filed counterclaims for fraud and deceit. I figured out he was under the influence in December 2006. In December 2006, I approached both California Dept of Real Estate and FBI. At that time I did not even suspect involvement of Judge Connor, of whom I knew nothing. Both agencies advised me that it was fraud, and that I had to find an attorney who would file counterclaims ASAP. For more than half a year from January to June I was seeking such an attorney... Could not find one...In July, an experienced real estate attorney explained to me - that nobody would dare file such papers in Judge Connor's Court... She would retaliate...
I also know what happened when an attorney who did not know the rules of her courtroom, Ed Hoffman, appeared for 10 minutes. He came back shaken... Then he demanded to withdraw papers that had his name on them, and that was it...
I received some anonymous tips, for example, an anonymous letter from a criminal defense attorney... He explicitly listed his concern regarding retaliation. He did not waste ink... at the end of the first paragraph he says:
"My opinion is that she belongs in prison, not on the bench..."
The issue of intimidation of criminal defense attorneys appears also in the Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006), although no judge is mentioned by name.
Impact on integrity of the judicial process
Any reasonable person would would review the case of Samaan v Zernik, would conclude that in fact it was a venue for the perpetration of crime. That the crime took place - real estate fraud- was indeed opined by fraud expert - a highly decorated FBI veteran. However, the claim here is that the litigation starting before the very first day that she appeared, and ending after the last day that she appeared, was committed to the perpetration of alleged crimes. Numerous instances of alleged fraud were identified, the number and convoluted nature of her conduct in simultaneously carrying out these numerous schemes, was at times mind boggling. At the end it is alleged that the simplest way to prove her criminal intent in the litigation is simply based on the written records that she produced. Some of it is provided in these pages. Of particular notice are the records that she produced on the first (January 30, 2006) and last day of her appearance (September 10, 2007), Each of these, on its own, reflected multiple alleged frauds ( See postings).
One notable example was the issue of intimidation of counsel to prevent the protection of clients against fraud in real estate. I ended up filing the counterclaims on fraud and deceit - called "compulsory" - in pro per. She first postponed the hearing, then denied the essential right.
In March 2007, since I was clueless, I obtained review of sample proceedings and an opinion from the office of Lionel Johnson, which came back as "Errors in Adjudication", and basically stated that she ruled upside down routinely.
In August 2007 I engaged Ed Hoffman. I was still not in position to comment on the law, but I knew that her rulings on findings of fact were deliberately false. Although we had major time stress, Atty Hoffman refused to believe my claims, and insisted on reviewing major part of the records on his own. He then returned and stated that it was all flawed based both on the fact and the law. We filed a massive motion for reconsideration on her purported Summary Judgment, only to have him intimidated by her, and then insist on withdrawing any paper carrying his name... after it was already filed.
Impact on integrity of other judges and coordination in alleged crimes
She appears to have unusual impact on other judges, and fraud that she allegedly instigated could easily generate cooperation by 9:10 judges in West District.
It was also obvious that the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Los Angeles) is thoroughly involved in the alleged real estate fraud in this case, and supported it in full.
The evidence regarding involvement of the Court of Appeals comes also from various other sources:
- Events relative to the appeals in Galdjie v Samaan, which it is doubted could be explained in a manner consistent with the fundamentals of the law.
- Events relative to petitions and appeals in Samaan v Zernik , likewise were inconsistent with the fundamentals of the law. to give just a couple of examples - the court tried to coerce Defendant to engage in appeal from a judgment which had never been entered. Separately - the court allowed plaintiff to enter a notice of cross appeal from nothing - no order or judgment was listed that the appeal was taken from. The reason - Plaintiff never acknowledged the validity of the judgment, while falsely claiming to press for its execution...
But more than all, the role of the California Court of appeals, 2nd District, can be seen through a series of rulings, that ambiguated the nature of entry of judgment, that ambiguated the nature of notice of entry of judgment, and finally - through Galdjie v Darwish - ambiguated the real property purchase agreement as well.
Impact on Initiating Crime
It is alleged that upon combined review of Samaan v Zernik and Galdjie v Darwish any reasonable person would conclude that they were cookie cutter real estate frauds. The former - also opined by expert. The latter - not yet so. But beyond that - any reasonable person would conclude that in both cases, judges were involved in the matter even before the complaints were filed in court - in short - that such fraudulent complaints were by solicitation, or at least by advanced coordination.
The complaints in both cases were of breach of contract, by a straw buyer, who first perpetrated fraud (as opined in the case of Samaan) by providing false documentation of qualification. The complaint failed to include a contract, and was based on vague "oral modification of written real estate contract". It is alleged that no attorney would file such complaint, unless he/she are clearly informed that there was a willing recipient in court.
This is one reason for claiming that the Courts in Los Angeles are largely responsible for the fact that the county was designated "epicenter of the epidemic"
B. EVIDENCE PRIMARILY FROM CRIMINAL COURTS
Evidence from the Criminal Courts
In reading of the papers from the Rampart scandal, what was awkwardly missing was the motive. Thousands of persons were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced to particularly long terms, with no reason at all?
Regardless, Judge Connor emerges as the central figure in the affair, both before it was discovered, and also after.
What motivated it all? At the end - the evidence is circumstantial -
1) It involved the undercover narcotic officers.
2) It started with the theft of 6 lbs of cocaine by Rafael Perez from police safe. That quantity was unlikely for personal use.
3) The cases of the victims, often involved planting of drugs to frame evidence.
4) The Consent Decree included a key provision of periodic financial disclosures by undercover narcotic officers. Alarmingly - that provision was one that could never be enforced.
5) Already some 2 decades earlier, Los Angeles County was established - in relationship to Iran-Contra, as an area where law-enforcement agencies were controlling the drug markets for profit, as documented in Special Report in December 1997.
A reasonable person, is likely to conclude based on such evidence and more, that the motive for the Rampart Scandal was tied to the control of drug distribution and profiteering from such by law-enforcement. In such view, the judges who engaged in the false convictions and false sentencing, were in effect that ultimate controllers of such illicit profiteering.
A separate question of alleged criminal conduct pertains to the role of judges in preventing the release of the Rampart FIPs, even to this date. If one accepts that the judges were not involved in the false imprisonment in a manner that was driven by criminal intent - then there is no possible way to explain their conduct today.
C. OTHER RELATED ISSUES
Then there is the LA Time profile, which, once you realize what we are talking about, you read a bit different..
It was discovered that in March 1997 she had written a glowing letter of commendation for then-police Officer Rafael Perez’s testimony during a kidnapping trial in her courtroom. Then, more than three years later, after Perez admitted to corruption, she quipped at an awards dinner in June that Perez’s lawyer–who was in attendance–should not come near her courtroom with his client.
Both sets of comments raised eyebrows–especially as she began making pretrial rulings in favor of the accused officers. Some wondered if she should have recused herself from the case. Victor Chavez, the presiding judge of the Superior Court, said he saw no reason for her to step down.
...
She’s soft-spoken from her bench, forcing lawyers to lean forward as she verbally eviscerates them.
Then there is this passage that once you know what we are talking about, you read very differently... it is December 24, 2000, after she reversed jury verdicts.
Attorney Winston Kevin McKesson, who represents ex-cop-turned-informant Rafael Perez, said he was disappointed by the ruling. “However, it’s really not surprising when you consider that what was at issue in this case went to the very heart of the criminal justice system,” McKesson said. “I think it is very difficult for this judge, who has spent the vast majority of her adult life in that system, to allow a jury decision that questions the system to stand. I think she felt threatened by the jury’s verdict.”
D. PATRONAGE OF JUDGE CONNOR BY FBI
Evidence from the Rampart scandal
1) The conduct of FBI and U.S. Attorney during the Rampart Scandal, cannot be reasonably explained. The fundamental question is: how it happened that the investigation of the largest ever corruption scandal, and at that - corruption of the local justice system, was left for the local justice to investigate, prosecute, and judge.
2) One cannot imagine that Judge Connor would have dared to engage as presiding judge in the First Rampart Scandal and undermine it, the way she did, with world media focused on her conduct, unless she knew that she had full backing by FBI.
3) No federal agency made any effort to free the Rampart FIPs in the past 10 years.
Evidence from Samaan v Zernik
1) In my first approach to law enforcement, in December 2006, I was assisted and advised, both by FBI and by California Dept of Real Estate, in fact - beyond what they are allowed to do by law.
2) In both cases - once I filed a detailed report - and it became clear who was involved - no further help was provided.
3) I attempted to file my first complaint against Connor to FBI in May 2007, when I had sufficient evidence. I called twice, talked with two different duty officers, with the exact same response. I said I wanted to complain about a State Judge, they asked for the name, I provided the name, they hung up. FBI never hung up on me in numerous phone calls before and after...
4) What emerges from the email by James Wedick, is that FBI agreed that I was and am the victim of fraud, also agreed that judges were involved, but tried to induce me to file a complaint where no judges would be mentioned.
5) I had a similar experience by phone with FBI. I considered it almost an attempt to incriminate me. There is no way that I could ever produce a half way logical complaint if I eliminate any mention of the role of judges, unless I fabricated something along the way. Even without it - filing a declaration, where you deliberately omit the critical pertinent information on the matter of the declaration, is in violation of the law, the way it was explained to me.
FBI seems to be conflicted on the issue ... I guess they have been through quite a lot together... I believe it should be delegated elsewhere, possibly the Public Integrity Section.
E. THE IMPLICATIONS OF FBI PATRONAGE OF JUDGE CONNOR AND THE LA-JR
F. THIS IS AN APPEAL AND SOLICITATION OF ANONYMOUS PERSONAL STORIES OR EVIDENCE
It is obvious to me that in the community of criminal defense lawyers, and also among real estate lawyers Judge Jacqueline Connor has a clear and defined record. I would be grateful for any anonymous stories in comments on this page.. Just go to some internet cafe, and tell us what you know... Please add some details, so that there would be credibility to such anonymous message... Check out the anonymous letter above... He definitely was helpful in making clear to me what we ar talking about.
It is alleged that combined review of the records from both civil an criminal courts, is likely to lead a reasonable person to conclude that Jacqueline Connor is and was in fact, for at least a decade, a central racketeering figure in Los Angeles County, and that through her conduct in the First Rampart Trial, she deliberately affected the obstruction/perversion of justice, and also directly affected the ongoing false imprisonment of thousands of persons, whose exact number remains to be discovered.
Grounds for overturning verdict:
In this case, the alleged impropriety is the improper reliance by the jury on an issue never proffered
by the prosecution nor articulated as a theory underlying the charges of conspiracy, false reports
or perjury.
The failure to decide whether or not there was an accident is fatal to the conviction of Mr. Buchanan
under these counts alleging perjury.
Misconduct, whether simply inadvertent, misguided or deliberate, still deprives defendants of their
right to a fair trial.
Penal Code section 1181.5 permits the granting of a new trial when the court has misdirected the jury
in a matter of law, or has erred in the decision of any question of law arising during the courts of the
trial or whether the prosecution has engaged in prejudicial misconduct.
Evidence available to the court suggests that in fact the jurors were misdirected in the law, that the
law was misapplied and that the misapplication resulted in the denial of a fair trial on the merits.
Admissibility of affidavits:
The people correctly argue that statements made, conduct, condition or events can be considered
but evidence of the mental processes of the jurors is strictly forbidden. However, this restriction
does not, contrary to the prosecution’s argument, prohibit advocates from “piercing the veil”
of deliberations.
The key consideration in determining whether affidavits or other evidence of juror misconduct are
admissible relate to the corroborative nature of the evidence, whether the statements or evidence
are open to corroboration by sight, hearing or the other senses.
Where there are objectively verifiable portions of the statements, it is only logical that the court may
consider them while disregarding the inadmissible portions … the court is allowed to take
the declarations into consideration as a whole in order to determine whether or not jury
misconduct occurred.
The argument offered by the prosecution that they did not seek any affidavits because this would be
improper in some way is not compelling. The state of the evidence therefore leaves the
statements undisputed.
The jurors did not agree that there was or was not an accident. Why they reached this conclusion
one way or another deals with impermissible mental processes. The fact that they did not reach an
agreement is admissible.
Significance of great bodily injury:
The trial record consistently shows that this first scenario, that no officer was hit, was the only theory
pursued by the prosecution throughout the trial.
The defense and the jury were presented with a single theory which the prosecution now claims
could have arisen from any number of different acts… . It was not contemplated by any of the parties
nor the court that there was more than one act upon which the people were relying.
The court is aware, as is any neophyte to the criminal justice system, that we have our own language
that must be learned and learned well by any practitioners… .
Certainly had the court been aware that the jury assumed there was such a charge as great bodily
injury, the rulings as well as the instructions would have been different.
The court does not suggest that the people deliberately exploited the misstatement or deliberately
deceived the jury into believing that there is such a crime as a “GBI charge” or “ADW with GBI.”
However, the fact remains that the shorthand referrals that are accepted on a daily basis in police
stations, on police reports, in district attorney offices and defense attorney offices were not corrected
in their presentation to an uninformed lay jury. The misconduct by the jury in proceeding on the
improper basis that there was such a crime is not at all unreasonable in light of the circumstances
presented to them… .
Conclusions:
The court does conclude that there was jury misconduct, though unintentional, misguided and
inadvertent, in the consideration of improper facts.
While recognizing the enormous pressure on the community, on the police force, on the district
attorney’s office and on the courts to “fix” the Rampart scandal, this court is only interested
in evaluating the fairness of the proceedings in this court and determining whether justice was done
in this case. This court cannot and should not consider the political ramifications of future lawsuits or
future prosecutions. The defense in this case has presented compelling arguments to support their
argument that the defendants did not receive a fair trial.
The court cannot simply look the other way and ignore the improprieties, innocent or not, intentional
or unintentional, that served to deny a fair trial in this case.
While the court cannot and will not presume to guess whether a correction of the errors would result
in any different verdict, it most certainly concludes that the verdicts in this case cannot stand.
LINKED DOCUMENTS
1) Nov 17, 2000 LA Times report
2) December 23, 2000 LA Times - reversing jury verdict in First Rampart Trial
3) December 22, 2000 NY Times - reversing jury verdict
4) December 22, 2000 LA Times - excerpts from the ruling
5) Rampart False Imprisonments - PBS (2001)
6) Rampart First Trial - PBS (2001)
7) Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
8) July 12, 2007 Filing for Disqualification for a cause in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
9) Sept 10, 2007 Filing for Disqualification for a cause in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
10) Aug 20, 2008 Anonymous Criminal Defense Atty Letter:
Should Judge Jacqueline Connor be investigated by DC Public Integrity Section as a suspect central figure in Los Angeles Racketeering ?
RE: October-December 2000 - Alleged Racketeering that was the subject matter of the First Rampart Trial, and obstruction/perversion of justice in the trial itslef, where she falsely presided as a judge.
Is there any law enforcement agency that is capable to address the situation in Los Angeles County?
Please enter comments below.
"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,"
said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.
