Motion To Quash Corrupt Settlement by Judge Robert Leslie Hess - Hess 03-20-14 Corruption at Stanley Mosk Court Where Judges Sell Their Decisions For A Purchase and Predictive Verdict!

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
James Blume, USMC Honorable et al 1242 3/4 N. Alexandria Avenue L.A, Ca, 90029-1404 (323) 663-1397 (Messages) Please Respond in Writing
(Respondents Stealing Mail) (Allowed by the Courts)
FILE UPON DEMAND PER THE CONSTITUTION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT O.S.C. & COMPLAINT TO QUASH SETTLEMENT DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTS & MURDER
] Case No.: BC0453664, BC470365, Other Related Cases BD317479 / B168653, D.A. ] 456083-0910 A / 02FL000867, 08U16492, Plaintiff, Complaintant 10U02548/ BV028409, BC464832, 720735, ] BC473026, 11U03997, BC464831, BC485710. 04CC12138, 12D001267, Vs. ] BC470365, BC477065, 8:12-bk-16255-CB, 8:12-bk-18590-CB, 274072, GC042105, Kathy Watt, et al ] 12D001267, 08D003897, 03CC05038 DDS720735, 03CC05038, 30-2012Defendants ] 00566104-CU-CR-CJC, ALONG WITH (CONSOLIDATION) & APPEALS CASES. ] A. INTRODUCTION: Judicial Facilitation ] to Violate Rights & to Sell Decisions Jury Trial Demanded B. FORUM SHOPPING FOR VEXATIOUS ] LITIGANT JUDGE, JUDGE HESS. C. ATTITUDE OF THE COURTS IN ADA DEMAND FOR COURT APPOINTED ] CALIFORNIA/FILER'S BILL OF RIGHTS (with F.B.R. Form, Checklist and DESIGNEE OR ADVOCATE ] Immediate Justice Upon Criminal Acts). 1. Stealing from the Dead. Res Adujudicata/Collateral Estoppel AND DOES 1-50 Whistle Blower Complaint ] 2. begins / In Limine Cases BD317479# & 02FL000867#. _____________________________________ ] 3. in History of Court Cases that Testify to ] Criminal & Illegal Acts of Judicial Scams. 4. LAHD Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over ] the Rental Units in the Estate of M. Blume. 5. Creating Fake Court Cases & Criminal ] Acts to Steal From the Dead. 6. Create Fake Court Cases & Criminal ] Acts to Make People in Pro Per Vexatious Litigants and Not to be Heard by the ] Courts. 7. FAKE COURT CASES BC470365# et al ] 8. Vexatious Litigant Scam & 4 Part Test. James Blume, USMC Honorable et al
- 1 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS
O.S.C. & COMPLAINT TO QUASH SETTLEMENT DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTS & MURDER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
] 9. Forum Shopping for a Vexatious Litigant Judge & the Courts Fit the ] Vexatious Litigant Behavior & Criteria. ] 10. Penal Code 837, a Private Person's Arrests for Criminal Acts by Judges ] violating the Constitution of the United States ] 11. Immediate Action of Relief. ] ] Time: 8:00 am Date: MARCH 20, 2014 ] Dept: 52 / JUDGE: Hess et al
A. INTRODUCTION: JUDICIAL FACILITATION TO VIOLATE RIGHTS TO SELL DECISIONS: TO ALL THE COURT(S) STATE, FEDERAL, TO ALL INTERESTED
PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; ALSO TO ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OR HEARINGS IN CALIFORNIA AND ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE by law under CCP 451 - 453.... of all Evidence presented in this Affidavit, Claim, Formal Complaint, and my series of Charges are true because Evidence does NOT Lie, People do! Plaintiffs in all of our Court Cases listed in this Court Document is Not an Attorney, but per the Constitution would like a Court Trial with a Jury of my peers. But it is always denied due to Judicial Prejudice, Judicial Discrimination, and Judicial Racism against the poor, colored, uneducated, and the Disabled People of California to get a Purchased and Predictive Decision. This is why The People want a Filer's Bill of Rights designed with a checklist (form) so Courts cannot tamper with our evidence and allow the Courts in California to stop the Selling of Decisions from the Bench to receive a Judicial Bribe using Facilitation! This Filer's Bill of Rights is designed with a checklist (form) so the Courts cannot tamper with the evidence to steer and guide cases to a predetermine outcome, force Judges to rule, justification for the Judge's Ruling, and accountability after each Court Appearance of what was construed for Justice. This checklist would immediately stop a Judicial Sham and Judicial Scam to sell decisions and stop violating our rights by criminal acts perpetrated in our own courts by criminal acts. When a violation in the checklist occurs, The People can contact an agency, Supervising Agency over the Courts to cease criminal activities in Court immediately. The error would be fixed immediately and the court
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
case can continue with another Judge and stop unnecessary Appeals and the cost of re-trying cases. The new Judge can review the Filer's Bill of Rights form/checklist and begin where the case left off or stopped when the case was purchased for a Judicial Bribe. If a Judge is constantly taken to the Supervising Agency, it will note the Corruption of this Judge. When Plaintiffs inform or confront agencies of criminal violations, such as, Police Departments, District Attorney's Office, LAHD, Courts, etc., nothing is done even though Plaintiffs are giving these agencies evidence of Criminal Activities perpetrated and allowed is court for a Purchased Decision. For proof of these Criminal Judicial Acts... Case Law, Stare Decisis, Rule of Law, along with the state's Sentencing Guidelines are NOT followed by law! As you read this, this is the problem the new Court Scam & Sham. It is a simple eviction case that goes year after year, court case after court case and Judge after Judge to steal property from the dead the Estate of Mine M. Blume. The vicious cycle is the Courts et. al. of California are stealing property, rental property illegally and making owners/estates go bankrupt and forced to sell. The problem is a Judicial Conspiracy between the Courts that Sell Decisions to renters with felony records and are not on the rental agreement. The renters do not pay rent, destroy the Estate, change the locks on the rental units and refuse to let management have access to the units. The renters contact LAHD who has no jurisdiction according to (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code is 7060. (a) No public entity, as defined in Section 811.2. The Estate of Mine M. Blume has 3 units or less on one parcel of land, which this Government Code states that LAHD has no jurisdiction, should not be collecting rental income and stealing it with excessive fines and bails violating our 8th Amendment Rights. LAHD is working illegally with the Courts. LAHD sells decisions by allowing renters who are not paying rent to have access to their courts. This is Judicial Facilitation. The renters not paying rent to LAHD or the Estate of Mine. LAHD refuses to give Blume et. al. funds from the REAP account to fix the Estate. But later overturns their judgment and gives it to our property management company, who is working in concert with LAHD and split the $9,000.00 for repairs to the estate with LAHD. Why? Because LAHD has a history of stealing money with excessive fines and bails. LAHD treats 3 units on one parcel of land like a large business apartment complexes. I believe this is why (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code is 7060. (a) No public entity, as defined in Section 811.2. was created. However even when finding the Rule, Code, Laws, the courts ignore them. Year after year, court case after court case and Judge after Judge, the Courts et. al., agencies, LAHD, the renters make
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
money off the Estate of Mine M. Blume. The renters are allowed to remain in the rental units of the Estate of Mine M. Blume with a forced agreement by the Courts and continue the same criminal behavior. This is Judicial Facilitation and Selling Decision on the bench by the Courts. The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is the governing body of the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. The councils statutory mission is to support the effective and expeditious administration of justice and the safeguarding of fairness in the administration of the courts. It has statutory authority to make all necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice within its circuit, [28 U.S.C. 332(d)(1)]. But this is NEVER done or allowed due to Judicial Corruption. For proof, I even criminally arrested the Court under Penal Code 837, a Private Person's Arrest or aka a Citizens Arrest of all the Judges involve in Selling Decisions, and not one of the several Judges Stepped Down or Stepped Aside by their Oath of Office when I Reported the crime to LAPD, Internal Affairs Division! (Exhibit 2#, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence)! For proof, what have the Judges and Courts done to insure safeguarding of fairness, make effective/appropriate orders for effective and expeditious administration of Justice per Federal Rule 8 (f)(c)(e) in Court Case BC0453664#, BC470365# & BC485710# or LAHD REAP Case 274072# when the criminal acts of theft, bribery, conspiracy, and embezzlement occurred in front of all to see and witness!? Can the Courts make a ruling on what was performed by law as to Justice to the Plaintiffs Blume et. al? Can the Courts make a ruling of what have the Judges and Courts done to insure safeguarding of fairness, make effective/appropriate orders for effective and expeditious administration of Justice per Federal Rule 8 (f)(c)(e) in the Vexatious Litigant Court Case when one court case does not match (Exhibit 34#) and in number 6. Create Fake Court Cases & Criminal Acts to Make People Pro Per Vexatious Litigants and Not to be Heard by the Courts and number 8. Vexatious Litigant Scam & 4 Part Test in this Court

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document? Can the Court violate CCP 446, 1013a, et al... and continue with the case overlooking your rights due to extreme prejudice of people in Pro-Per to be sure they lose their cases by judicial criminal acts perpetrated in a court of law? The term "substantive due process" (SDP), is commonly used in two ways: first to identify a particular line of case law, and second to signify a particular attitude toward judicial review under the Due Process Clause. Was SDP determine Case Law and signify a particular attitude of Justice? Can the Courts make a ruling on the paragraph to follow the position of the Court? How does 11 court cases listed on a Vexatious Litigant Motion on a simple eviction case that has been in Default 3 years where Judge Hess refuses to rule on the Default and evict these renters with a Criminal Records, use LAHD and the Courts illegally, committed perjury on their Complaint and not pay rent and now want to settlement years later, dismiss the case and have an open check (Exhibit 69#) to the illegal and criminal activities displayed in Court to revive Unjust Rewards using Judicial Facilitation. This is how the Courts reward renters with a criminal records that bribes the Judge. In order to have a Settlement doesn't both parties have to be present and agree; instead of using Judicial Extortion and other criminal acts to steer cases to a predictive outcome? James Blume et. al. does not agree with the Settlement. Why should I agree in a case where I was even denied a Jury Trial, an Advocate or Designee as allowed in the my past cases; BUT NOW WITHELD FOR A JUDICIAL BRIBE; WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE TO RECEIVE A BRIBE!!! Procedural Due Process[edit] This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. The article "Some Kind of Hearing" written by Judge Henry Friendly created a list of
1 2 3 4 5 6
basic due process rights "that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority."[14] These rights, which apply equally to Civil Due Process and criminal due process, are:[14] 1. An unbiased tribunal 4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses 10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Yet, this was NOT done by law to any of my court cases. All government proceedings must safeguard the Civil Rights of Individuals. How was this done when evidence is cancelled (Exhibit 3 & 4#), destroyed & missing (Exhibit 16, 56 & 57#), received with a Rec'd Court Stamp (Exhibit 5#) and not an official Court Stamp and failure to recognize laws that and evidence that proves in Legal Proceeding and Court Cases of ... (274072#) (BC485710#) (BC470365#) that has absolutely no merit? When evidence is not being ignored, destroyed or altered by the Courts, then it is being manufactured by the Courts (Exhibit 38, 39 & 40#). Not only do We the People need a Bill or Filers Bill of Rights, with a Checklist, but somewhere outside the Courts where We the People can receive unbiased intervention from this Corruption in Courts.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 6 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

Judge Hess and the Courts of California is biased, there is failure to submitted evidence and evidence is destroyed and his written finding of facts and reasons for any decision do not meet the criteria and have no merit. This is a Bold Statement from Plaintiffs, but from the performance of the Courts it is obvious, evident and apparent (BC453664#). How can Judge Hess in his findings (Exhibit 34#) with not one Court Case is a match, claims there must be 5 litigation's to the same person. This does not exist! Therefore cannot be! How does 11 court cases that are all dismissed by Judges, not heard by trial, jury trial, in default and signed properly and the courts refuse to rule on a simple eviction court cases that continues for 6 years (Exhibit 34 & 62#)? Because the Courts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
et al. serve a purpose to Steal Properties and Steal Property and Inheritances from the Dead(BC466737#) (Exhibit 63#). Can the Courts make a ruling on the illegal activities in this Vexatious Litigant conviction and the Abuse and Misconduct of the Courts?
B. FORUM SHOPPING FOR VEXATIOUS LITIGANT JUDGE, JUDGE HESS:

So Attorney Campbell went Forum Shopping to find a Corrupt Judge, like Judge Hess. For 3 years, Judge Hess cannot rule on a simple Eviction Case that is Default. Attorney Campbell Conspires with Judge Hess to make a fake Court Case, not once but several times with several Courts, agencies, et al. In Court Case LAHD (274072#), Shimabukuro et al.(BC485710#) Watt et al. (BC470365#) and Vexatious Litigant (BC453664#). The Courts, Campbell, LAHD & Farmers Insurance conspired with renters who have former criminal records for Drugs to live at the Estate of Mine M. Blume for free and destroy the Estate to avoid paying rent; BUT TO APPLY FACILITATION TO STEAL USING THE COURT AS A TOOL OR AN INSTRAMENT TO COMMIT THIS THEFT. For proof and to confirm the judicial criminal charges, LAHD has no jurisdiction over a 3 unit parcel on one property which was allowed by the court to seize properties, rent, and allow Vandalism to illegally place the property in REAP, by the LAHD, for over 20 years (discussed later in number 4. LAHD Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over the Rental Units in the Estate of M. Blume. In this court document). Renters are not paying the Estate of Mine M. Blume therefore should have no access to LAHD, even the renters/Estate of Mine M. Blume is unqualified for the Jurisdiction LAHD. Farmer Insurance Attorney's are probably given favor by the Courts by fake or the lack of representation (Exhibit 42#, page 4, line 14 &17) (Exhibit 43#, page 6, line 14 &17)(Exhibit 46#, page 3, line 14 &17). Throughout Veatch Carlson, LLP, Attorneys Rice and Czajkowskyj from Farmer's Insurance there is an intentional lack of representation, especially when
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Attorney Campbell et al. commits several of Criminal Acts. For proof, Veatch Carlson, LLP wanted to do our Appeal, this is why representation was withheld, as done in the Castaneda's Case! Exhibit 42#, Exhibit 43# & Exhibit 46# there are several errors where the wrong court case is listed with the wrong people, plaintiffs, defendants, and on every service list it claims Veatch Carlson, LLP Attorneys for Defendants, Mary Ann Blume and James L. Blume. However we are also listed as Pro Per and Attorney Daniel P. Tusa Esq from Early, Maslach & O'Shea are also listed as Attorneys for Defendants Mary Ann Rodriguez and James L. Blume, yet Early Maslach & O'Shea/Daniel P. Tusa has never attended Court in LASC with us. Why, if they are our attorneys? Can the Courts explain why the court hired, allowed, arranged for Veatch Carlson, LLP, Attorneys Rice and
11 12 13 14 15 16
Czajkowskyj from Farmer's Insurance is NOW representing us; and without the required a MC-50, 51, and 52 forms needed by law to allow this legal procedure, as done in the Castaneda's case that set Precedence or Case Law; BUT NOT DONE IN OUR CASE!? Why, and please explain why the court decisions contradict each other? (Exhibit 83#)? Why is Daniel P. Tusa Esq from Early, Maslach & O'Shea & Farmer's Insurance are also listed as Attorneys for Defendants Mary Ann
17 18 19 20 21 22
Rodriguez and James L. Blume and never attended Court? How are we represented by Attorney Tusa if he never attends court with us and a settlement is reach that we disagree with by criminals and there Attorneys that Suppressed Evidence of a Tape Recording that the criminals or opposing party that states that they are going to seize our property? And the court allows this by violating our rights by not allowing us to present this evidence? For absolute proof, I want to play my Tape
23 24 25 26 27
Recorder in court; as I was allowed by law in the past; BUT DENIED FOR A BRIBE! Civil Due Process[edit] At a basic level, Procedural Due Process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions
28 - 8 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."[15] As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[16] Or, to put it more simply, where an individual is facing a deprivation of life, liberty, or property, procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge. Plaintiffs are facing deprivation of life, liberty and property, procedural due process mandates that Blume et. al. are entitled to adequate notice on hearing & a neutral Judge, but Blume et al is not given that right (Exhibit 60#, 34#, 2#, 82#, 83# & 54#). This is when a Civil Case becomes a criminal case and the
11 12 13 14 15 16
... Fruits from the Poisonous Tree Doctrine, which means any part of the Court Trial, Procedural Law, Due Process the whole court case is tainted and contaminated, and now void. How is Blume, a former Police Officer et. al. even given notice & a neutral Judge when the courts manufacture evidence illegally and criminally, suppresses his rights to lose his case to former criminals and committing judicial theft by bribing the courts? Is this legal? For proof, Judge Hess and other Judges
17 18 19 20 21 22
took a Bribe by Attorney Campbell, because the Brown Act was even violated that's on court record by Judge Hess! In Court Case BC453664#, Exhibit 13# (a certified copy of the Case Summary), on page 3 of 4 beginning on 03/24/2011, 04/042011, 04/05/2011 a series of Request to Enter Default. Each time James Blume, Jose Castaneda et. al. made the modifications and corrected every error requested by the Court Clerk who gave legal advise, till it was performed correctly or she
23 24 25 26 27 28 - 9 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

refused to file my legal documents which is Judicial Extortion. Can a Court Clerk give legal advice and then threaten you, that they wont accept your court filings? On May 19, 2011 the Court Clerks refused to Court Stamp the resubmitted copy. James Blume, Jose Castaneda et. al. mailed the resubmit date 05/19/2011 (Exhibit 84#). The courts manufactured and manipulated the Case
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Summary illegally to make a document that states resubmit as an Amended Complaint to release time constraints to make the Default disappear and continue with the trial. For Proof, almost of James Blume et. al. Court Cases are dropped because we fail to Amend Court Documents to re-set the Time Constraints for illegal and criminal court documents to be corrected in this judicial sham and scam (Exhibit 62#, 34#, page 6 of 9 list of court cases). Is it legal for the Courts to manufacture and manipulate court documents that are written as resubmit and listed on the Case Summary as Amend Complaint when it is not an Amended Complaint to illegal reset the case by fraud, lies, and to get a bribe from the Attorneys? Judge Hess sat on this Court Document for 3 years and knew it was in Default. For proof, how can an Eviction case with no rent being paid; sit in a
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
court for many years with no rent being collected? Can the Courts explain why it takes 3 years to rule on a simple eviction case, that's already in Default? When a case is in Default, is this case how did the court continue to ignore the Civil Rights, Bill of Rights and the Constitution? Furthermore Corrupt Judge Hess has to continue with the Eviction process in Court Case BC453664#, because in Exhibit 82#, it is a MC-50# Substitution of Attorney in Pro Per transferred from James Blume to Mary Ann Blume. In Exhibit 13#, page 2 of 4, this is also documented & memorialized on 12/31/2012, Substitution of Attorney Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr. So even if James Blume is a Vexatious Litigant, Court Case BC453664# must be heard by Judge Hess and Mary Ann Blume. Court Case BC453664# remains in Default. Mary Ann Blume is demanding an
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
immediate eviction, with past rent with damages done by the renters per their own admissions on my answering machine!!! The Supreme Court has formulated a balancing test to determine the rigor with which the requirements of procedural due process should be applied to a particular deprivation, for the obvious reason that mandating such requirements in the most expansive way for even the most minor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
deprivations would bring the machinery of government to a halt. The Court set out the test as follows: "[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail." But this was NEVER DONE, or even allowed as granted by the law! Why? For proof, the court never justified its own ruling because the Judge knew it was illegal, and done for a favor and prejudice which is a Bribe, under Penal Code 67 & 68, a Felony!! United States of America Amendments to the Constitution; The first ten Amendments are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses however more broadly because these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws,
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 11 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. According to the The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: guarantees a Jury Trial. 28 U.S.C. 2402 also requires that if you are suing the U.S. government, you are entitled to a jury. However, you will only get a jury if you ask for one in your pleadings. In Exhibit 11#, a certified copy of the Case Summary for Court Case BC470365#, page 2 of 4 dated 02/01/2012 Answer to Complaint (AND DEMAND FOR
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
JURY TRIAL). How come I was denied a Jury Trial by law? Please Explain! In Exhibit 13#, a certified copy of the Case Summary for Court Case BC453664#, page 2 of 4 dated 07/08/2011 Demand for a Jury Trial. Again, why didn't I get my Jury Trial by law? This illegal acts to NOT give me a Jury Trial were done, because the Judge could NOT get his Bribe money if the Jury ruled against the Judge! Also several of the Court Cases listed in Exhibit 34# (page 6 of 9) James Blume requested a Jury Trial by law. Yet James Blume et. al. is not given a Jury Trial, which violates our 7th Amendment Rights. Why come to a court if your rights are always violated!
C. ATTITUDE OF THE COURTS IN CALIFORNIA / FILER'S BILL OF RIGHTS (F.B.R.) IS DEMANDED (with F.B.R. Form, Checklist and Immediate Justice Upon Criminal Acts).
(Exhibit 15#, page 4 & 5) (Exhibit 18, page 1#) (Exhibit 2, 16, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 54, 60 & 62#) The Exhibits above and throughout this court document discuss the Attitude of the Courts from missing Court Documents, attorneys that quit and return to sabotage your case illegally, Judges that feel Pro Per litigants should perform as attorneys or better than attorneys, attorneys that use other Courts as an Appellate Court, Judges who refuse to hear our court cases and simply dismiss the court case, Judges that become obstruction and obstacles refusing to rule, allow court cases to continue and refusing court case to move to the Appellate Court, Corrupt Judges that steal and take a bribe, Corrupt Judges that fail to perform Due Process, Stare Decisis and Procedural Law, etc. etc.
Evidence usually always gets destroyed, lost, or stolen, and the Evidence Is Withheld to violate rights to a Fair Hearing or Trial for a Judicial Bribe and steer cases to a Predetermine Decision, Verdict, or Outcome by bias Judges. (Violation of Penal Code 67 & 68, BRIBERY, a Felony) These are the series of Judicial Tricks & Tactics used, developed, and applied for many years to manipulate court cases and the misuse of laws in California Courts to automatically to win or to lose a case illegally, for a Judicial Bribe by Judicially Sabotaging Court Cases in the state of California. The Courts in California developed a system, Under The Radar, to use a series of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Judicial Criminal Acts to sell or buy courtroom decisions in California for many years by the Criminal Judicial Tactic of Facilitation! Judicial Facilitation is used, applied, and implemented to court cases in California to steer or guide cases to a Predictive and Purchased Decision by the Courts when a Judicial Bribe is paid; or if you are in Pro-Per and discriminated against because Judges wants ONLY Attorneys he can control. These series of Judicial Criminal Acts or Illegal Judicial Tactics are usually Targeted and Perpetrated on Self Represented cases or People in ProPer because we are easy Targets for the court and its officers due to extreme judicial prejudice and extreme judicial discrimination with extraordinary hatred on the poor, colored, uneducated, and disabled. For absolute proof, nothing is done or performed to effectively correct the problems under... FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8 (c ) (f) and (e) Constructing Pleadings: Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice or as substantial justice. But again it is NEVER done! For Clear Cut Proof, what was done for James Blume et. al. by any court cases over 10 years? Nothing!!! THIS IS WHY WE NEED A FILER'S BILL OF RIGHTS WITH A FORM AND CHECKLIST TO CONDUCT PROPER PROCEDURAL LAWS AND TO GET FAIR & JUST VERDICT, where both parties agree after each step. This way the Courts cannot conspire to drop, dismiss or not hear court cases. This is due to Judicial Prejudice and Judicial Retaliation and for speaking out as a former Marine and former Police Officer (Exhibit 1#), laymen, educators, students for Exposing the Judicial Scams perpetrated on the People of California and to commit Judicial Fraud, Judicial Retaliation, Judicial Conspiracy, Judicial Terrorism, Judicial Facilitation and Judicial R.I.C.O.!!! For Proof... requesting a copy of case files below by law Exhibit 34#, Blume v. Watt BC453664, Order on Submitted Matter filed JUN 17 2013 in Los Angeles Superior Court and a copy of tapes or transcript of the Court's Electronic Recording Monitor per Rule 11#. The Court transcripts are not the official record.
The Electronic Recording Monitor is the Official record [Douglas Smith v. United States District
23 24 25 26 27 28
Court Office Nos. 98-1423, 98-1548] Again, I demand my case Tapes for official Record to prove my rights were violated. It is evident when one just reviews Exhibit 34#, Blume v. Watt BC453664, Order on Submitted Matter filed JUN 17 2013 in Los Angeles Superior Court. First of all, on page 2 and 3 of the Court Document is a list of a series of court trials 1 through 11. They are either eviction cases or related to the eviction cases and nothing is done, which violates my rights. The cases begin in 2008 and continue today as of 2014 and nothing is done, which is nuts! What was the court doing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
then; if nothing is done by law! Instead of ruling on these court cases even thought they are in Default, the Judges receive a bribe. A bribe does not have to be only financial, but can be to seek a position or keep a position, promotion, favor and to be given favor later. For proof, the cases has been going on for many years and nothing is done; except to silence the Whistle Blowers. Instead of ruling on the cases by law and evicting these renters with felony records who lied on the Rental Application, then falsifying evidence, commit perjury, criminal and illegal acts from renters, attorneys, agencies and Judges et. al. they silence We the People with Judicial Retaliation, Judicial Terrorism, Judicial Facilitation, Judicial R.I.C.O. and make We the People Vexatious Litigant illegally. Not only do the courts not hear We the People, but they do this by enforcing the label of Vexatious Litigant illegally, and refuse any evidence or written court documents (Exhibit 2, 3, 4, 5, 49, 50, 51#), refuse to be heard and silence We the People. For proof, Vexatious Litigant is performed at the beginning of a court case. It claims to be heard on 05/15/2013 , the Judgment on 06/17/2013, after the motion Cut-Off date 02/12/2013 (Exhibit 34, 52#). If the Cut-Off Date has passed; Can the courts explain why after all this time have passed, the court Entertains the Vexatious Litigant after its own Cut-Off Date it already set by law? Can the court explain and give immediate ruling on why its done in the middle or end of the Hearing after all this time and money was wasted unnecessarily violating the court's own Cut-Off Date?? This proves Judicial Prejudice and Judicial Bribery!
Also Judicial Conspiracy, Judicial Terrorism, Judicial Bullying and Judicial R.I.C.O. occurs when Farmer Insurance Attorney do nothing to defend us and other agencies such as LAHD that have no Jurisdiction according to the law which states in (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code is 7060. (a) No public entity, as defined in Section 811.2. LAHD perform illegal Court Cases by renters not on the rental contract and are not paying rent and Farmer Insurance Attorney Rice assists the renters, Playa Vista Property Management and LAHD (Exhibit 47 & 48). For proof, James Blume, USMC was in Pro-Per and his Attorney was Mr. Tusa! Can the Court, Judge Hess appoint his own Attorney, Robert Rice and Cyril Czajkowskyj for James Blume when he was in Pro-Per and Farmers Insurance Gave me Attorney Tusa!? To verify the truth; there was no MC-50, 51, or 52 as required by law and case law. (See Castaneda's case; for proof as case law)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1. TO STEAL FROM THE DEAD:

Furthermore, when several Judges, Government Agencies, Attorneys, Courthouses, Court Cases, etc., work In-Concert to steal from the dead who cannot defend themselves it becomes Judicial Conspiracy, Judicial Fraud and Judicial RICO. Once Courts and attorneys find a Probate Case, they become Judicial Bounty Hunters steal and split the assets of the dead person(s) estate and split it amongst each other (Exhibits 2, 15, 17, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 49, 50, 51, 54 & 63#).
For proof, in Court Case GC031549# & BC466737#: Jose Castaneda's mother, Felicitas Castaneda, was granted a partial settlement check of $400,000.00 for the death of her son Luis Castaneda. In Court Case GC031549#, this $400,000.00 is found by Attorney Mercado's placing check into Mercado's Trust Fund Account. As Jose Castaneda pursues this quest to find the assets of the dead, Luis Castaneda (his brother) and Felicitas Castaneda (his mother), Jose Castaneda is Judicially Retaliated against and Judicially Raped of his Constitutional Rights from not having access to the Courts, being ignored by the Courts, made a Vexatious Litigant by the Court illegally, made poor and has a one million dollar Judgment against him. PURSUANT TO THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1714.10: A CIVIL CONSPIRACY AND PENAL CODE 182, A Felony, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY FOR FINANCIAL GAIN TO SELL DECISIONS WHILE VIOLATING THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS... Can the Courts explain why Felicitas Castaneda's $400,000.00 was found in Attorney Mercado's Trust Fund Account? Can the Courts explain a million dollar Judgment against Jose Castaneda with no damages presented to the court? Can the Courts explain the $50K Bond for Security as a Vexatious Litigant in Exhibit 63# page 3 of 7 dated 03/28/2012? Can the Courts explain what and where the assets of the Estate of Felicitas Castaneda's and why her Estate never made it to a Probate Court when several attorneys are involved and Millions of dollars are missing when the court ordered the case to Probate, and was never done or done correctly?
1.(A) THIS PATTERN OF STEALING FROM THE DEAD CONTINUES:

25 26 27 28 - 15 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS
For more proof, there is an all out attack on the Estate of Mine M. Blume, James Blume, Mary Blume, Jade Rodriguez, Jordan Rodriguez, et al. Furthermore one is guilty by mere association with James Blume, Jose Castaneda or both. In Exhibit 2# Supervising Judge Buckley has deemed both
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
James Blume and Jose Castaneda as one person that means anyone who knows or who is related to either would be consider the same person. LAHD (274072#) (BC485710#) (BC453664#) (BC470365#), Farmers Insurance(BC485710#) (BC453664#) (BC470365#) (274072#), Bankruptcy (8:12-bk-16255-CB#)(8:12-bk-18590-CB#)(BC485710#) (BC453664#) (BC470365#) Court, Oswald & Yap (04CC12138#), Veatch Carlson LLP (274072#) (BC485710#) (BC453664#) (BC470365#), LASC (BC453664#) (BC485710#) (BC470365#) (274072#), OCSC(08D003897#)(30-2012-00566104-CU-CR-CJC), Lamoureaux Justice (BD317479#) (08D003897#)(12D001267#)(02FL000867#), Center, Early, Maslach & O'shea (BC485710#) (BC453664#)(BC470365#)(274072#) Campbell & Farahani (BC485710#) (274072#) (BC453664#) (BC470365#) Orange County DCSS (BD317419#) (08D003897#) (02FL000867#), Tony Rackauckas D.A.(BD317479#) (08D003897#) (02FL000867#), Corrons-Hickey & Hickey(03CC05038#) (04CC12138#), JP Morgan CHASE Bank(08D003897#) (30-2012-00566104CU-CR-CJC) Attorney Catherine Grant Wieder (BD317479#) (02FL000867#) . All these Court Cases will show the Attitude of the Courts, where the Courts of California are corrupt, prejudice and have a different set of rules and attitude towards the poor, colored, disabled, etc. The California Courts believe the poor, colored, disabled, etc., do not belong in the Courts of California, refuse to hear our/We the People Court Cases and simply dismiss our Court Cases which violate our 8th Amendment Rights. The Courts of California refuse to give the poor, colored, disabled, etc. Justice and access to the Constitution of United States. In these series of Court Cases, James Blume has the same pattern as Jose Castaneda where he is Judicially Retaliated against and Judicially Raped of his Constitutional Rights from having access to the Courts, being ignored by the Courts, made a Vexatious Litigant by the Court illegally to silence them, we are made poor and has several unjust Judgments against us which make no sense. For proof; review the cases to see who is lying? James Blume receives food stamps, Medi-Cal and General Relief with huge Judgments against him that he could never catch up creating failure. This violates his 8th Amendment Rights to Cruel & Unusual Punishment by sabotaging his Civil Rights and all his court cases by prejudicial and criminal acts committed in court.
2. Res Adujudicata/Collateral Estoppel begins in Court Case BD317479# & 02FL000867#:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Res Adujudicata/Collateral Estoppel begins in 08/20/2001 in Court Case BD317479# (Exhibit 20#) and when Judge Schnider Rules on Further Judgment on Reserved Issues on 11/07/2001. By 10/23/2001, Atty. Wieder is already looking at James Blume's inheritance (Exhibit 22#, 3rd paragraph). Judge Schnider Rules that James Blume will pay $129.00 a month for Child Support. Atty. Wieder complains to Judge Schnider that the Child Support is not high enough. Judge Schnider informs Atty Weider to Appeal his Decision and the Jurisdiction of the Court Case remains in LASC .
Instead of Appealing the Court Case per the Judge's Order, Atty Weider uses Lamoreaux Justice Center in Orange County as an Appeal Court. Atty Weider illegally tries the same case in another County, Orange County, when Kathy Evans and Sara Blume is still living in Los Angeles County, which is a form of Double Jeopardy. For proof (Exhibit 38#), the Visitation on page 8 of 12, item 4 (c) at a specific location 10210 Bryson Ave South Gate CA. This address is in Los Angeles County, not in Orange County and therefore illegal. Furthermore in Exhibit 41# (4 pages) copies of Sara Blume's cum that documents information that Sara Blume attends school in LAUSD, resides at 10210 Bryson Ave. South Gate, CA 90280 and a copy of a gas & utility bill for verification. So if both parties live in L.A. County, why was the court case in Orange County at Lamoreaux Justice Center? In Exhibit 23#, Attorney Wieder is Forum Shopping out of Los Angeles County to Orange County Courts and goes to Lamoreaux Justice Center & Tony Rackauckas D.A. There 3 sets of Court Documents are sent to the Probate Case BP065666# (Exhibits 38, 39 & 40#). Lamoreaux Justice Center & Tony Rackauckas D.A. & Corrons-Hickey & Hickey and together work In Concert to violate the Rights of James Blume and attack the Estate of Mine M. Blume to increase the Child Support illegally from $129.00 to $364.00, which was never granted by LASC. Exhibits 38, 39 & 40# is a series of Court Documents divided up by a Court Judgment by Judge Schnider. All of this evidence is manufactured evidence by Lamoreaux Justice Center & Tony Rackauckas D.A., Corrons-Hickey & Hickey and Atty Wieder to Steal from the Estate of Mine M. Blume. Is it legal to make a court ruling on fraud and criminal acts? Are Courts et. al. allowed to butcher court documents to manufacture and manipulate a falsified verdict or an outcome never order by the courts? Why is this criminal act allowed in our courts in California? For proof, see the Castaneda's too and see the similar illegal tactics used on his case too; which proves its a Universal Courtroom Sham &Scam to steal from the People!
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
All three Exhibits 38, 39 & 40 # are sent one whole package in the same order, not divided up in 3 sections. It is divided up in three Exhibits by Plaintiffs to make it easier to explain and not overwhelm the reader(s) of this court case and Plaintiffs to explain. The first issue Plaintiffs is the greed of the Courts. James Blume has paid his attorney (Exhibit 21#) , Ms. Weider for performing his CLETS form in Exhibit 38#, pages 5-7. Why the constant resubmit on constant payment when it has already been paid? Is this legal? This is the greed, ugliness and corruption of the Courts to allow Double-Dipping. Also, this is how the Courts, Tony Rackaukas D.A., DCSS and attorneys work in concert to create a vicious cycle of overwhelming payments that James Blume cannot come out from underneath and steal from Probate Cases, stealing from the Dead to violate his 8th amendment Rights. Is this legal? Please rule and explain by law!
In Exhibit 38# (12 pages) pages 1 & 2 of 12# is a Notice Regarding Payment of Support Form filed Feb 07 2002 Court Case 02FL000867#. Page 3 of 12# Court Case 02FL000867# is a Notice of Registration of California Support Order Form file Jan 31, 2003. Page 4 of 12# Court Case 02FL000867# is a Statement for Registration of California Support Order Form file Jan 31, 2003. Pages 5 & 6 of 12, Court Case BD317479# filed Jul 28 2000 Restraining Order after Hearing (CLETS) and on page 7 of 12#, last page of the CLETS there is NO SIGNATURES. According to CCP 446 (a) personal signature is required akin to the CCP128.7 (b) requirement that all papers filed with the court must be signed. Page 8 of 12#, Court Case BD317479#, Child Custody and Visitation Order Attachment Form (1296.31A) proves that Kathy Evans and Sara Blume live in Los Angeles County not Orange County. The exchange for Sara Blume is at 10210 Bryson Ave South Gate CA. Atty Weider and Kathy Evans used the Orange County Courts illegally using Judicial Facilitation.
Page 9 of 12# Attachment to Child Custody and Visitation lists the times but not the location. Page 10 of 12#, Court Case BD317479#, Child Support Information Order Attachment Form (1296.31B) it states in item 6 under Child Support $364.00. In Exhibit 39# on page 10 &11# paragraph 52# under FINDINGS, claims James Blume that the cannot make more than $1,000.00 a month. In paragraph 53#, it states that James Blume must pay $129.00 a month and documented in Exhibit 22 & 23#. This form is manufactured by Lamoreaux Justice Center & Tony Rackauckas D.A., Corrons-Hickey & Hickey and Atty. Wieder, not by Judge Schnider. For proof, in Exhibit 38# on page 12 of 12# it is not signed by Judge Schnider. All Orders and Judgments must have a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
signature. A rubber stamp with print does not constitute or replace a signature from a Judge. According to CCP 446 (a) personal signature is akin to the CCP 128.7 (b) requirement that all papers filed with the court must be signed. Therefore this document is illegal, because its NOT signed by law! Furthermore at the bottom of the page in Exhibit 38# on page 12 of 12# (Exhibit page number), it states page 8 of 10 in the Court Document page number and a rubber stamp with manufactured printed dated JUL 28 2000 and ROBERT A. SCHNIDER JUDGE PRO TEM stops the Court Document on page 8 of 10#. Where is page 9 and 10# of this Court Document? This entire document is manipulated and manufactured by Lamoreaux Justice Center & Tony Rackauckas D.A., Corrons-Hickey & Hickey and Atty. Wieder to Steal from the Estate of Mine M. Blume. Can the Court explain who is manufacturing these illegal Court Documents to steal, why are they able to abuse the courts and law in this manner and can the FBI perform a thorough investigation and have these people arrested and disbarred? Criminal acts in the court by the very people who represent law and justice should not be practicing in any legal system. The problem is Criminal Acts are rewarded in our Justice System. Otherwise no one would continue the blatant criminal acts performed throughout this series of Court Cases.
In Exhibit 38#: From Court Case 02FL000867# the first page is a Statement for Registration of
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
California Support Order Form filed Feb 07 2002 by Tony Rackauckas, D.A. In Exhibit 39# the first page is Notice of Entry of Judgment Form (1290) from Court Case BD317479# filed Nov 07 2001. The next 1-15 pages is Further Judgment on Reserved Issues from Court Case BD317479# filed Nov 07 2001.
In Exhibit 38# on page 2# it states on line 27 & 28, in Further Judgment on Reserved Issues it states on page 2# it states on line 27 & 28 that Respondent is ordered to pay to Petitioner the sum of $1,178.00 to equalize this division. Said payment may be offset against Petitioner's child support arrearage owed to Respondent. This was never done and an illegal increase from Orange County Courts raising child support from $129.00 to $364.00 (Exhibit 20#). Why would Judge Schnider contradict with an earlier Judgment of $364 (Exhibit 38#, page 10, 11 & 12 of 12#) of July 28, 2000 to a Final Judgment of $129 (Exhibit 39#, page 10, paragraphs 52 & 53) August 20, 2001? Why did not Judge Schnider mention the change or reduction of Child Support from $364.00 to $129.00 in the Final Judgment? Because this $364.00 Judgment was made illegally after Judge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Schinder Final Judgment in August 2001 by another court in orange County trying the same exact case twice. How can all these Courts, agencies and attorneys enforce a document that is not signed and a Judgment for $364.00 that does not exist? Also, if two orders by two separate courts heard the same exact case twice; WHICH ORDER DO I FOLLOW? This is Judicial Entrapment because Lamoreaux Justice Center, Tony Rackauckas D.A., DCSS and Atty Wieder & Hickey falsified records and knew James Blume was unemployed, disabled, and could never come out of the bondage of Child Support the way it was being manufactured and manipulated by the Court et. al. No matter how many times it is explained to the courts, D.A., memorialized in court documents Blume et. al. is not heard by the courts, does not have access to the courts and documents memorializing Criminal Acts by the Courts are destroyed. How does the courts explain these is illegal and criminal acts by their own Justice System to steal from the people they were supposed to serve? NOT STEAL FROM, USING JUDICIAL FACILITATION AND PERJURY!!!
Furthermore in Exhibit 39# it is stated in Further Judgment on Reserved Issues it states on page 10#, line 14, under Child Support: paragraph 52#, line 16 .. As to Petitioner's ability to earn, his jobs in the recent past have been scattered, limited and of short term. He seems to have difficulty navigating successfully in society, and the court declines to find that he has the current ability to earn more than $1,000.00 per month gross monthly earnings. In paragraph 53# it states, Petitioner shall pay to the Respondent for the support of the child SARA LYNN BLUME born March 03, 1996, $129.00 per month, payable one half on the first and one-half on the fifteenth day of each month, commencing September 01, 2001. There is no mention of a prior Judgment is Child Support in the amount of $364.00 or an adjustment of $364.00 to $129.00 because it never existed. It is evident that these courts are accustomed to bribery, stealing money and criminal acts of rr-trying cases to steal because this court document will show that this behavior of bribery, stealing money and criminal acts are always allowed. The Courts of California laugh at the poor, colored, deprived, etc. This is why The People need a Filer's Bill of Rights with a checklist. This Filer's Bill of Rights is designed with a checklist (form) so the Courts cannot tamper with the evidence, force Judges to rule, allow lies or false evidence, and with the justification for the Judge's Ruling, and accountability after each Court Appearance what was construed for proper Justice. This checklist would immediately stop a Judicial Scam to sell decisions. When a violation in the checklist occurs, The People can contact an agency, Supervising Agency over the Courts to cease criminal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
activities in Court immediately by showing the Check-List. The error would be fixed immediately and the court case can continue with another Judge. The new Judge can review the Filer's Bill of Rights form/checklist and begin where the case left off or stopped. If a Judge is constantly taken to the Supervising Agency, it will note the Corruption of this Judge, keep the Justice System accountable and stop rewarding criminal acts used for many years to steal.
In Exhibit 40#, is when Lamoreaux Justice Center, Tony Rackauckas D.A., DCSS and Atty Wieder & Hickey falsified records these records and attack the Probate Case BP065666#. Page 1 of 20# is a Statement for Registration of California Support Order from from Court Case 02FL000867# filed Feb 07 2002, which has James Blume's Correct address in item 5# that is established back in 02/07/2002. Page 2 of 20# is a Declaration of Support Arrearage form filed Feb 07 2002. Pages 3 to 6 of 20# are Proof of Service forms by Mail by the O.C. DCSS Jan C. Sturla, Director to Catherine Grant Wieder, Mary Ann Blume Rodriguez, Mary Sarmiento, and Jassmine Blume and sent to Probate Case BP065666# on 08/11/04 signed by Kathleen Twitty, Paralegal.
On page 7 of 20# is a Notice of Lien form by O.C. DCSS Jan C. Sturla, Director, signed and dated 08/11/04 and by Linda Rovito, Deputy Department Counsel. On page 8 of 20# is a recycled, already used Proof of Service by Mail probably used for the Final Judgment is dated October 23, 2001 by Catherine Grant Wieder. For proof it states on page 8 of 20# (Exhibit page number) at the bottom of the page in the footer it reads Further Judgment of Reserved Issues. It also states that this is probably page 15# on court number paper above the footer from the Further Judgment of Reserved Issues. How can a Proof of Service dated October 23, 2001 by Catherine Grant Wieder send a court documents pages 1 through 7 of 20# that was written 08/11/04 and signed by Linda Rovito, Deputy Department Counsel 3 years prior to these court documents being written? How does Linda Rovito, Deputy Department Counsel sign and date court documents pages 1 through 7 of 20# dated 08/11/04 and sent or mailed by Catherine Grant Wieder October 23, 2001, 3 years before it was written? How is this possible? This is Judicial Fraud. Does the courts see the blatant lies of the the court et. al? How does the courts explain these criminal acts? It seems the more lies the court et. al. writes and the more people involved, court et. al. believes their lies are the truth. This is Judicial Bullying and violates Blume et. al. 5th, 8th and 14th Amendment Rights.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Furthermore pages 9 to 13 of 20# verifies this Judicial Fraud making illegal calculations of child support to support their Judicial Fraud by working in concertand criminal acts by claiming James Blume ever had to pay $364.00. Although certification and verification is lacking throughout these court documents, plus Judge Schnider's signature is missing in Exhibit 38#, page 12 of 12#, and placing the last page of a Further Judgment of Reserved Issues as a Proof of Service by Mail dated and sent October 23, 2001, by Catherine Grant Wieder 3 years prior to an stamp of Certification of Official Record dated 08/11/04 by Kathleen Twitty existed. How is Kathleen Twitty able to Certify an Official Record when all the Court Documents are fraudulent, manipulated and manufactured Illegally and all the acts leading up to the Certification of Official Record dated 08/11/04 are criminal? How does the Court explain these criminal acts?
Pages 14 & 15 of 20# are another set of Proof of Service forms by Mail by the O.C. DCSS Jan C. Sturla, Director and sent to Probate Case BP065666# on 08/11/04 signed by Kathleen Twitty, Paralegal. Pages 16 to 20 of 20# another set of illegal documents of child support that never existed. Again how is Kathleen Twitty, Paralegal able to sent and certify illegal court documents that are fraudulent and have been manipulated and manufactured illegal by Courts et al.? The Courts et. al. are falsifying illegal court documents and performing criminal acts. How is this legal? Can the courts explain the repetitious falsifying illegal court documents and performing criminal acts in the same document an overt act that the court et. al. construes any type of Justice? This is flat out evil.
3. HISTORY OF COURT CASES THAT TESTIFY TO CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL ACTS OF JUDICIAL SCAMS:
There are so many Court Scams one cannot even to begin the name them all. Blume et. al. through our journey through court cases and have experience multiple scams so the courts could steer the court case to a predictive or predetermined verdict, which is Judicial Discrimination and Judicial Prejudice. Are these Scams legal? These Court Scams violate our 5th, 7th and 14th Amendments for Due Process, Procedural Law and the right to a jury trial. Just some of the Judicial Scams are list below. When the Courts et. al. have several companies and agencies involved (Farmers Insurance, LAHD, Playa Vista Property Management Inc., LAPD et. al.) and this is a pattern (Exhibit 34#) then

1 2 3 4 5
this becomes Judicial Fraud, Judicial Conspiracy, Judicial Retaliation, Judicial Bullying, Judicial Facilitation and Judicial R.I.C.O.
NOT HAVING ACCESS TO THE COURTS SCAM (Exhibits 1 to 89#),
DESTROYING EVIDENCE SCAM (Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 16, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 56, 57, 76 & 77),
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
FORCED TO PERFORM AS AN ATTORNEY IN PRO PER SCAM (Exhibits 2, 15, 17, 31, 33, 34, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50 , 51, 52, 53, 54, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 & 82#),
ATTORNEYS FAILURE TO REPRESENT (Exhibits 2, 15, 17, 18, 21, 34, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 84, 85, 86, 87 & 88#),
THE COURTS HIRE ATTORNEYS (Exhibits 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 34, 42 43, 44, 46,47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 65, 71, 73, 75, 83 & 86#),
HIDING COURT DOCUMENTS IN OTHER COURT CASES (Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 (Service List, page 4 of 5 LASC Case No. BC475710#),
FORUM SHOPPING (Exhibits 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 71, 85, 86, 87 & 88)
AMBUSH SCAM (Exhibits 18, 19, 47, 48, 44, 73, 17, 86, 87 & 88)
ADDRESS SCAM (Exhibit 64# and Exhibits 1 to 89#)

23 24 25 26 27 28
AMEND SCAM: (Exhibits 31, 33 & 62#)
BAIT & SWITCH SCAM: (Exhibits 13 & 62#)
MANUFACTURING AND MANIPULATING EVIDENCE SCAM:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3A# FORCED TO PERFORM AS ATTORNEYS IN PRO PER: The Courts are adamant and convinced that the poor, health compromised and challenged, colored, etc., in Pro Per are forced to perform as attorneys and better. When Plaintiffs attend any Court at any level, the Commissioners, Judges, attorneys and Courts demand Plaintiffs must perform as attorneys. This is why Plaintiffs lose all their cases. The Courts et al. retaliate against the Plaintiffs for requesting Justice. Our Court Cases are not heard and simply dismissed.
It is even stated in writing by Commissioner Vogl in Court Case 08D003897#, A Tentative Decision on Reserved Issues in Exhibit 15#, page 4, under the topic Discussion: It is boldly stated that self representing litigants & prokpria persona litigants are not entitled to a fair hearing and must perform as an attorney with sited Court Cases to justify. line 12# ....It must be clearly stated that the standards in court are no different for the self representing litigant, and
that by enforcing the rules the court is not being biased.
line 15# ....Courts hold then to the same standards as to an attorney. (City of Los Angeles v. Glair (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 813, 819; Gamet v Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284-1285.). line 19# ....Further, the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an
attorney[citation].
(Nelson v Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639 fn. Omitted; see also Gamet
v Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284-1285. line 23# ....mere self-representation is not ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. (Rappleyea vs. Campbell, 1994, 8 Cal4th 974. Continued.......Exhibit 15#, page 5: line 3# ....Otherwise, ignorance would be unjustly rewarded. Such a litigant is entitled to the same
but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.
See Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.
App.3d 1044. lines 6-8# A layman with resources who insists upon exercising the privilege of represent himself must expect and
receive the same treatment as if represented by an attorney no different, no better, no worse.
Ackerman vs.
Southern Arizona Bank, 1932, 39 Ariz. 484. The California Courts, Judges, etc is looking at inheritance as resources mentioned in the above lines 6-8#. The California Courts et al. look at an inheritance as their money and the people who worked hard and died are not entitled to give it to legacy or their desires. The California Courts et al.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
believes inheritances belong to them. In Exhibit 22#, l page, third paragraph, it states ...when you receive your inheritance.... The Courts and divorce Court Cases are not entitled to a person's inheritance. It is not even a month after the divorce in Court Case BD317419#. The letter is dated October 23, 2001 and states in the last line of paragraph 3, Your current support requirement is $129 per month effective September 1, 2001. When LASC informs Attorney Wieder to Appeal if she does not like the Final Judgment, Attorney Wieder opens a new case in Orange County at Lamoreaux Justice Center (02FL000867#). In Exhibit 15#, page 5, lines 6-8# A layman with resources who insists upon exercising the privilege of represent himself must expect and receive the same treatment as if represented by an attorney no different, no better, no worse. How does the Courts know that I am a layman with resources? How does the Courts determine this? It is because the California Courts believe I have an inheritance and the California Courts et. al. are entitled to steal from the inheritance. This Court Case 08D003897# is also in Orange County at Lamoreaux Justice Center and Plaintiffs know this is Judicial Retaliation and Judicial R.I.C.O. Plaintiff went bankrupted for owing from this and other court cases 8:12-bk-16255-CB, 8:12-bk-18590-CB. Again how did Lamoreaux Justice Center determine Plaintiff was A layman with resources? For proof, in Exhibit 15#, page 6, line 8, it states Respondent did not comply with Family Code Section 3665 and file a copy of his tax returns. Respondent did not comply with Family Code Section 3665 and refuses to continue to comply by withholding his tax returns year after year. Furthermore Respondent is Rewarded for not complying with Family Code Section 3665 by reduction of Child Support Exhibit 15#, page 7, line 20-23, Child Support is dropped from $723 to $495 and Spousal Supports Exhibit 15#, page 13, line 3-7, is dropped from $1,000 to $650. How does the Court determine this unless the Commissioner took a bribe?
What the Courts are saying is when you are poor, disabled, colored etc...you are not entitled to be in court and to seek any type of Justice. These are the Rules the California Court enforce to create failure. When Plaintiffs make an error the Courts automatically dismiss our Court Cases. If the Courts make an error or the case is in default, the Courts order Plaintiffs to amend their Court Documents to release time restrains on illegal Court Documents. This is due to a bribe. This is to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
keep the poor, poor...the rich, rich and Criminal Judges on the bench to support this type of Injustice. Furthermore the Courts will continue make one poor, create harm and make one desolate. According to The Court, when interpreting Pro Se Papers, should use common sense to determine what
relief the party desires. S.E.C. v Elliot, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992). See also, United States v. Miller, 197 F. 3d 664, 648 (3rd Cir. (1999) (The Court has a special obligation to construe pro se litigants pleadings liberally); Pooling v. K. Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F. Supp. 2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J. 2000)
contradicts all the Rules and Laws of Commissioner Vogl in Court Case 08D003897#, A Tentative
Decision on Reserved Issues in Exhibit 15#, page 4, under the topic Discussion: where he boldly stated that self representing litigants & propria persona litigants are not entitled to a fair hearing and must perform as an attorney with sited Court Cases to justify. Also according to FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8 (c ) (f) and (e) Constructing Pleadings: Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice or as substantial justice. Plaintiffs are raped of Justice. Does the Court see the contradiction and Judicial Retaliation in the statements in Exhibit 15# by Commissioner Vogl to the laws and rules of the Court listed above? Why would the Court Abuse their power? Can the Courts explain this?
3B# ATTORNEYS FAILURE TO REPRESENT: In Court Case 04CC12138#: Attorney Carol A Gefis, our attorney from Oswald & Yap went Forum Shopping for a Judge she could bribe, steal money and not defend. She closed out Court Case 03CC05038# and opened a new case 04CC12138#. Attorney Gefis came to court the day of the Jury Trial, and claimed she could not win against Attorney Jeffrey Bradpiece therefore Plaintiff's were forced into a settlement (Exhibits 44, 45, 46 & 17#). Plaintiff's had a choice of accepting a bad Settlement or risk going to Court with an Attorney, Carol A. Gefis that claimed she would lose against Respondent's attorney, Jeffrey Bradpiece. This happened in Jose Castaneda's Court Case. The Courts claim that his attorney, Ivan Shomer, did not have a MC-50# Substitution of Attorney. It was found in Court Documents days later. Attorney Shomer did not represent Jose Castaneda and was stuck representing himself. In Exhibit 45#, it lists in the Court Docket of Register of Actions a (ROA 45#, page 2 0f 5) Jury Fees are Posted on 11/09/2005 & (ROA 79#, page 3 of 5) Jury Instruction on 04/18/2006 (Exhibit 45#). After paying for a Jury Trial, Plaintiff's never got a Jury Trial. This violates Blume et. al. 7th Amendment Rights. Oswald & Yap got $80,000.00 for doing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
nothing. Also, Plaintiff James Blume did not receive his Judgment. It is the continuous Judicial Fraud, Judicial Facilitation and Judicial R.I.C.O. that violates James Blume's 8th Amendment Rights of Cruel & Unusual Punishment. Furthermore Carol A. Gefis is not a Probate Attorney and that is why her name is not listed as Plaintiff's Attorney. Attorney Gefis is Rewarded by the Courts by not giving James Blume his share of the Judgment $129,000.00 and James Blume share of the Judgment, the bounty was shared with Judge, attorneys involved and Oswald & Yap. For proof, what was James Blume awarded for his share in the property? Nothing! Plaintiffs found out just recently that Attorney Gefis is a Labor & Employment Attorney. Can the courts explain why we did not get a Jury Trial after paying for it? If we paid for a Jury Trial and did not get it where is our refund? Do Judges normally get ready for a Jury Trial and see that parties are settling on an amount that we spent just to get to trial? Can the Judge see that the Settlement is lopsided? Does the Judge ever ask why people are settling for so little? These Judges are bribed and had no intention of going to court. If Jose Castaneda found the MC-50# and the error was on the Courts should not the Court practice Due Process & Procedural Law and allow this case to be heard? Also, this Judge had no intention of going to trial, because the Court et. al. had already stolen the money from his mother's account via Attorney Mercado. Can the Courts explain where the assets from Jose Castaneda's mother's bank account went?
In Court Case 08D003897#: Sheryl Edgar refused to represent Plaintiff about a week before trial date. On November 10, 2008 Substitution of Attorney Form filed by S.L. Edgar. Petitioner requested from the Courts for Attorney Edgar to finish the Court Case. On 12/12/2008 Attorney Edgar did not appear for court, but still won the court case and was no longer my attorney. For proof, check the Court's electronic monitoring recorder per Rule 11 (Exhibit 15#, page 3, lines 1- 8). Plaintiff paid Attorney Edgar $20,000 for doing nothing. Furthermore Plaintiff hires a new attorney, Thomas Alkam, January 6, 2009 (Exhibit 15#, page 3, lines 10- 17). Attorney Alkam realizes that Attorney Edgar has done nothing. Attorney Alkam memorialize this in a letter dated 01/09/2009 requesting information (Exhibit 19#, 2 pages). In paragraph 3, Attorney Alkam discusses the Deposition Subpoena issued to CalSTRS by Attorney Edgar. It is stated Was the Subpoena served? If yes, has there been any document produced in response to the same? Attorney Alkam did nothing either because this very issue is discussed by Commissioner Vogl in Court Case 08D003897#, A Tentative Decision on Resevered Issues (Exhibit 15#, page 15, lines 23- 24) stating It would seem that the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CALSTRS pension plans of the parties were disposed of pursuant to the parties' stipulation of Sept. 4, 2008, but the court retains jurisdiction to make such orders are appropriate to effectuate the division. Money is missing throughout this court trial. Plaintiff believes this money was used to bribe Comm. Vogl. Plaintiff paid Attorney Alkam $18,000 to finish the trial, instead Plaintiff paid Attorney Alkam for doing nothing.
In Court Case 12D001267# (Exhibit 85#): In Lavine v. Lavine, Melody Lavine had the same or similar problems as Court Case 08D003897#. 2 attorneys failed to perform. Her first attorney midway through the Court refused to represent her. The second attorneys was even worst. In Register of Actions No. 36# Income & Expense Declaration 08/04/2012, this attorneys took an old Income & Expense Declaration from the former attorney and submitted. The Judge was bribed. The second attorney forced her to take a settlement and refused to represent her. As the Melody Lavine cried while signing the Settlement the Attorney claimed he had better things than her court trial to do because his wife is pregnant with child and he is busy.
In Court Case BC453664 & BC470365#: In Exhibit 42#, really says it all. First of all, there is no Substitution of Attorney Form MC-50# from Early, Maslach & O'Shea (Daniel P. Tusa, Esq) (Exhibit 74#) to Veatch Carlson, LLP (Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J. Rice). Why is Veatch Carlson, LLP (Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J. Rice in LASC representing nobody in BC470365# & BC485710#? Is this legal? In Exhibit 42#, on page 1, line 1, Veatch Carlson, LLP from Farmer's Insurance is representing both Plaintiffs. On page 1, line 4 , 5 & 6, Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J. Rice is representing both Plaintiffs, Mary Ann Rodriguez and James L. Blume. Throughout this Court Case of BC453664 & BC470365# these two Court Cases are Consolidated. Because these two cases appear on each and every court form, both court cases BC453664 & BC470365# are listed on the same Court Documents. If both court cases are not consolidated, then separate court documents should be prepared for each court case just as Manuel Shimabukuro, et al v. Mary Ann Blume, et al. which is an identical court case to BC470365# and just another related court case.
In Exhibit 42#, page 2#, again Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J. Rice from Farmer's Insurance is representing both Plaintiffs, Mary Ann Rodriguez and James L. Blume. However on page 4#, Daniel P. Tusa, Esq. from Early, Maslach & O'shea is from Farmer's Insurance is representing both Plaintiffs,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Mary Ann Rodriguez and James L. Blume. However on line 14, James Blume is a Plaintiff in Pro Per and on line 17, Mary Ann Blume is a Plaintiff in Pro Per also. Who is Mary Ann Rodriguez? In the same court document how can Early, Maslach & O'shea represent us, but never attended Court in LASC? How does Veatch Carlson, LLP (Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J. Rice) claimed to represent Blume et. al. without a MC-50? How can both Early, Maslach & O'shea and Veatch Carlson, LLP (Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J. Rice) represent us and Blume et. al. is in Pro Per. How does the Court explain this? Can the Court explain this? How does, at the top of page 4 under Service List, Kathy Watt, et al. v Mary Ann Blume et al. the Court Case No reads LASC Case No. BC470365# just as the Related to Manuel Shimabukuro, et al. v. Mary Ann Blume et al. Both Court Cases have the same Court Cast No., LASC Case No. BC470365#. Furthermore how does, at the top of page 4 under Service List, Kathy Watt, et al. v Mary Ann Blume et. al. have the same court case number as Manuel Shimabukuro et al v. Mary Ann Blume et. al. Both Court Cases read BC470365#. How is that possible? Can the Courts explain this?
In Exhibit 43#: The same problems occur. Again on page 1 & 2, Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 29 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS
Rice, (Veatch Carlson, LLP) from Farmer's Insurance is representing both Plaintiffs, Mary Ann Rodriguez and James L. Blume. However on page 1, line 11, instead of Kathy Watt and Nancy Garcia, it should read Manuel Shimabukuro, et al. and the Case No. should be BC485710#, not BC470365#. On page 3 & 4, Court form SUBP-015 reads under Plaintiff/Petitioner Kathy Watt, et. al. It should read Manuel Shimabukuro, et al. and the Case No. should be BC485710#, not BC453664#. On page 6#, Daniel P. Tusa, Esq. from Early, Maslach & O'Shea (Farmer's Insurance) is representing both Plaintiffs, Mary Ann Rodriguez and James L. Blume. However on line 14, James Blume is a Plaintiff in Pro Per and on line 17, Mary Ann Blume is a Plaintiff in Pro Per also. Again, who is Mary Ann Rodriguez? Furthermore at the top of page 6, Kathy Watt, et al. v Mary Ann Blume et al. the Court Case No reads LASC Case No. BC470365# just as the Related to Manuel Shimabukuro, et al. v. Mary Ann Blume et al. Both Court Cases have the same Court Cast No., LASC Case No. BC470365#. According to Exhibit 44#, Court Case BC485710#, Shimabukuro, Manuel et al. v. Blume Mary Ann, et al. should have been done September 18, 2013 at 9:30 am by Farmer's Insurance, Veatch Carlson, LLP, Cyril Czajkowskyj and according to Exhibit 74# Court Case BC470365# Kathy Watt v. Blume should
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
have gone to trial February 27, 2013 at 8:30 am by Farmer's Insurance, Early, Maslach & O'Shea, Daniel P. Tusa, Esq. It is almost one year later and nothing has been done. Why is this allowed?
How does the courts and our attorneys from Farmers Insurance justify these simple court cases prolonged for a year to end up in Settlements? They have to Settle because everything from the Complaint filed is Fraud, Criminal and illegal. Blume et. al. refuses to settle and wants to go to trial.
In Exhibit 43 & 46#: In Exhibit 46# Veatch Carlson, LLP has the same errors as Exhibit 43#. Both Notices of Depositions on line 17, it reads Trial Date: NONE. How can the trial date read NONE when according to Exhibit 44# Court Case BC485710#, Shimabukuro, Manuel et al. v. Blume Mary Ann, et al. should have been done September 18, 2013 at 9:30 am by Farmer's Insurance, Veatch Carlson, LLP, Cyril Czajkowskyj. These depositions are a formality and never performed. The worst part they are being performed 09/16/2013, 2 days prior to their court date 09/18/2013. Standard Operation of Procedures are not performed, such as Depositions, etc. It is not performed in all court cases represented by FARMER'S INSURANCE, Veatch Carlson, LLP, Atty. Cyril Czajkowskyj and Atty. Robert Rice and Early, Maslach & O'Shea, Atty. Daniel P. Tusa. When FARMER'S INSURANCE, Veatch Carlson, LLP , Atty. Cyril Czajkowskyj and Atty. Robert Rice attempt to perform a deposition, they have Watt & Garcia's name & court case number BC470365# and Veatch Carlson, LLP are deposing Sonoko Aoki (Exhibit 46#) and Manuel Shimabukuro (Exhibit 43#) on the wrong court case with the wrong people.
3C# THE COURTS HIRE ATTORNEYS: In Court Case BC485710# & Court Case BC470365#: Judge Hess claims Courts do not hire attorneys. This is not true. Judge Hess and Judge Hiroshige has hired Veatch Carlson, LLP, Atty. Cyril Czajkowskyj and Atty. Robert Rice. For proof, where is the MC-50 (Substitution of Attorney Form) Farmer's Insurance from Early, Maslach & O'Shea, Atty. Daniel P. Tusa to Veatch Carlson, LLP, Atty. Cyril Czajkowskyj? It does not exist. Early, Maslach & O'Shea, Atty. Daniel P. Tusa never attended any of the court procedure or came to court in LASC. Can the Courts present a MC50# Substitution of Attorneys From Early, Maslach & O'Shea to Veatch Carlson, LLP? If they can it is manufactured by the courts.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
In Court Case BD317419#: During James Blume divorce court case Judge Schneider tells James Blume to pay the opposing Attorney Weider $500 (Exhibit 20#). Plaintiffs pays Attorney Weider and in the memo indicates James Attorney 10/31/01 (Exhibit 21#). In Exhibit 22#, Attorney Wieder acknowledges payment for CLETS and mentions his inheritance. This is discussed on page 4, lines 12- 21. How did Orange County D.A. determine that James Blume's child support should be increased from $129 at LASC to $364? Did OCSC act as an Appellate Court overturning a Final Decision? Judge Schneider hires Attorney Weider to retaliate against James Blume and set him up for failure (Exhibit 23#). In Court Case 08U016492#: filed 12-09-08, a Simple Eviction Case and All Parties James Blume, Kathy Watt & Nancy Garcia are in Pro Per. In Exhibit 24# indicates in the second box in the right column that the date is 01/09/09. Then, Judge Dodson, for a Judicial Bribe, hires an Attorney at the end of trial. Attorney Azuka Uzoh shows up for opposing Party without an MC-50 form, as required by law, which also displays Judicial Prejudice and Discriminatory practices. For proof, the Certificate of Service is dated 01/12/09 (3 days after the court date) with no signatures, just a typed name John A. Clarke. Can can Azuka Uzoh represent Watt & Garcia without an MC-50 and win? Is this legal? How come Attorney Shomer cannot represent Jose Castaneda because the Courts could not find Attorney Shomer's MC-50#, but Attorney Uzoh can represent Watt & Garcia without an MC50#? Is it done because Judge Dodson got a bribe? How is this fair? Does the Court just make up rules as they go along with no regard to the Constitution of the United States? Can the Court please explain this?
In Court Case 08D003897#: On February 26, 2009, Commissioner Vogl hires Attorney Edgar to Retaliate against Plaintiffs (Exhibit 18#). On Form FL-180, item 2#(a ) it states under date September 4, 2008/February 26, 2009. On Form FL-180, item 2#(c) it states across the page under Attorney present in Court (name) SHERYL L. EDGAR. Why? As of 12/12/2008 Attorney Edgar was no longer my attorney and Attorney Alkam is my attorney (Exhibit 15#, page 3, lines 1- 8 & 1017). The only function performed on 02/26/2009 was taking away Plaintiff's medical & dental benefits to harm Plaintiff and so Plaintiff would not qualify for Disability. Is Commissioner Vogl allowed to rehire Attorney Edgar to retaliate against me? Is this legal for Attorney Edgar to represent me when I hired Attorney Alkam? Where was Attorney Alkam during this Court trial? Can the Court
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
explain why Attorney Edgar is representing me and not Attorney Alkam who I hired? Isn't this illegal to have an attorney represent you without a MC-50, 51, & 52# form as required by law with the Attorney's declaration explaining to the court? In James Blume's Case its legal; But in Castaneda's it not legal! Which lie is the truth; when both court decisions conflict on the same exact issue!? Please explain this to me! But you cant because its a Court Sham and Scam developed to steal using Judicial Facilitation with Judicial Fraud!
3D# NOT HAVING ACCESS TO THE COURTS: In Court Case BC485710# dated 09/16/2013 (Exhibit 3#) & 06CC06990# dated 12/04/2006 (Exhibit 4#): Both Court Documents are officially stamped by the Courts and then a CANCELED Stamp is place on the Official Court Stamp. Why? The Courts are refusing to give an Official Court Stamp when placing Court Document to be filed so people in Pro Per will lose. The Courts are stamping Court Documents OSC & Criminal Complaint With Charges as REC'D dated 09/09/2013 FILING WINDOW (Exhibit 5#). This violates our 5th and 14th Amendment Rights of Due Process.
In Court Case 08D003897#: Court Clerk Rita Escobedo refused to stamp my Court Documents unless Plaintiff changed the Title of my Court Case from OSC: Full Custody of Children (Exhibit 27#) to Declaration of Mary Ann Blume (Exhibit 28#). And again to change Court Document OSC: Contempt of Court & Complaint (Exhibit 29#) to again Declaration of Mary Ann Blume (Exhibit 30#). This violates our 5th and 14th Amendment Rights of Due Process. Explain why Court Clerks are allowed to refuse Court Stamped Documents?
In Exhibit 10# (1 page): Exhibit 10# is a request on 12/13/2013 for a Register of Actions. Los Angeles Superior's Court Clerks claim they do not have a Register of Actions, only a case summary. However other courthouse's have a Register of Actions, such as Pasadena and Orange County Superior Court. For proof, we have a certified copies of both case summaries for both cases BC470365# (Exhibit 12#, 1 page request form & Exhibit 13# 4 pages + 1 page for certification) (Watt v. Blume et. al.) and BC453664# (Exhibit 11#, 4 pages + 1 page for certification) (Blume v. Watt et. al.). LASC is busy manufacturing and manipulating evidence that is why LASC refuses to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
give Blume et. al. a copy of the Register of Actions. How can Blume et. al. get Register of Actions from other Courts such as Orange & Pasadena Courts, but not LASC?
In Exhibit 34#: Not one Court Trial on James Blume's Vexatious Litigant was heard including the actual Vexatious Litigant . On page 4 of 9, on May 15, 2013 as we began to discuss the court case the Courthouse had a fire or emergency drill at 10:00 am. Everyone had to evacuate the Courthouse and wait outside. The drill lasted one hour. Judge Hess left our case for last and well into the lunch hour. The Vexatious Litigant Motion was never heard or discussed. For proof, per Rule 11, Plaintiffs are requesting a copy of the Electronic Recording Monitor on all cases. No such Court Case was heard and neither were the others listed on page 5 & 6 of 9. Furthermore how can a Default Eviction Case BC453664# share the same court case number as a Vexatious Litigant? These are 2 separate Court Cases and should have 2 separate Court Case numbers. This also happened to Jose Castaneda's Court Case BC466737#. The Courts had no intention of hearing this court case, so the Courts got rid of it by making Jose Castaneda a Vexatious Litigant. The proof is in Exhibit 63#, page 3 of 7, middle of the page and has a posting of $50,000.00 on 03/28/2012. How did the Courts determine $50,000.00 for a man with diabetes working as a 6 hour aide in LAUSD? The amount of money charged to post security is evident the Courts do not want to hear this Court Case? 3E# DESTROYING EVIDENCE (SCAM): (This violates our 5th and 14th Amendment Rights) In Court Case GC042105#: There are no records of Jose Castaneda's Exhibits (Exhibit 16#).
In Court Case 30-2012-00566104-CU-CR-CJC#: Response to JPMorgan Chase Demurrers dated October 25, 2012 is missing from Court Documents (Exhibit 26#).
In BC453664# (Exhibits 12 &13#) & BC470365# (Exhibit 10 & 11#): It is a request on

12/13/2013 for a Register of Actions for both cases. Los Angeles Superior's Court Clerks lie and say they do not have a Register of Actions, only a Case Summary. However other courthouse's have a Register of Actions, such as Pasadena and Orange County Superior Court. For proof, we have a certified copies of both case summaries for both cases BC470365# (Exhibit 12#, 1 page request form & Exhibit 13# 4 pages + 1 page for certification) (Watt v. Blume et. al.) and BC453664#
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(Exhibit 11#, 4 pages + 1 page for certification) (Blume v. Watt et. al.). How is it that Pasadena & Orange County Courthouses have Register of Actions, but no LASC? Can the Court explain this?
In BC453664#, Court Documents from Plaintiffs is missing Exhibit 56# Court Stamped dated 05/08/2013 titled SELLING COURT ROOM DECISIONS TO SEIZE PROPERTIES & Exhibit 57# Court Stamped dated 04/24/2013 titled QUASH SANCTIONS & COMPLAINT. Plaintiffs put a lot of time and effort into their court documents and want to be heard by the courts. The continuous criminal behavior of court documents missing, stolen and destroyed makes it impossible to get a fair hearing or trial. In these court documents Plaintiffs prove that the courts criminal behavior, corruption of the courts, and that Plaintiffs are not given a fair trial. In Exhibit 11 & 13# these documents Exhibit 56 & 57# are missing and do not exist on Exhibit 11 & 13#. Exhibit 56# Court Stamped dated 05/08/2013 titled SELLING COURT ROOM DECISIONS TO SEIZE PROPERTIES & Exhibit 57# Court Stamped dated 04/24/2013 titled QUASH SANCTIONS & COMPLAINT is missing. This is why they had to perform a Settlement. There are too many illegal and criminal acts. Blume et. al. refuse to sign a Settlement.
In Court Case 08D003897#: Motion to Extend child Support For Disabled Autistic Adult in College dated 10/30/2013 & Motion to Extend child Support For Disabled Autistic Adult in College dated 11/20/2013 are missing. Motion to Place the 2007 Honda, Pilot in Plaintiff's Name dated 11/20/2013 is missing. Motion to Change Dentist to Local Dentist in Buena Park, Dr. Varughese dated 11/20/2013. Lamoreaux Justice Center throws away court documents because the Courts do not want to hear this court case. Lamoreaux Justice Center loves hearing court cases and do nothing. It is a pay to play scam. For proof, Blume et. al. has been in court since 2008. What have the Courts performed to construe any type of Justice? None. Since 2008, Blume et. al. cannot get Frank Rodriguez's taxes. Even though it is a Court Order year after year. 3 Judges since 2008, Vogl, Neary and Belz and nothing is done. Is this legal?
3F# JUDICIAL SCAMS: THERE ARE SO MANY COURT SCAMS THAT THE COURTS ARE CORRUPT. These scams are not new, some even have names like the Bait & Switch Scam, Amend Scam, Forum
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Shopping for a Judge Scam, Vexatious Litigant Scam, Attorneys not Representing Client Scams, Adding and Removing Court Cases Scam, Adding and Removing Documents from Court Case to Court Case Scam, Not Having Access to the Court Scam, Manipulating and Manufacturing Court of Court Documents Scam, Rubber Stamp or Type in Name Scam, Refusing to Hear Persons in Pro Se or Pro Per Scam, Post Security Scam, Fake Fee Waiver Denial, No Trial Scam, Fake Court Cases Scam, No Appearance(s) Scam, No Notification Scam or No Notification Until After Trial Date Scam, Signing Your Own Verification and Proof of Service Scam, Fake Court Trial Scam etc., are mentioned throughout this court document. Other scams are Destroying Evidence Scam, not allowing We the People to file our court documents, stamping court documents with a Cancelled Stamp Scam not to be heard. Plaintiffs sit in courtrooms where we are Threatened Not to Speak Scam. If we say anything, the Officers of the Court standing in front of you making hand gestures and mean faces. Plaintiffs attend court and Doors are Locked Scam on us, Courtrooms are Darkened Scam and not in use, Judges Ignore Us Scam and Decisions are Sold Purchased by the Courts Scam.
How can a simple eviction Court Case remain in Default for 3 years, not be ruled upon, the Plaintiff becomes a Vexatious Litigant without making the criteria, never had a court trial, cannot afford the post security of $3,000.00 because Plaintiff is on Food Stamps, Medi-Cal and General Relief Programs, and the Default Court Case and Vexatious Litigant Court Case have the same Court Case Number BC453664# and the same Judge Ruling both cases? How can this be an unbiased Judge when Judge Hess could not even rule on an Eviction Court Case BC453664# for 3 years that is in Default and refuse to rule on this court case? Judge Hess still refuses to rule upon this Default Court Case by making James Blume a Vexatious Litigant (Exhibit 13#, page 2). This is Judicial Extortion. How did Judge Hess come up with the post security with the sum of $3,000.00 from a person that is Disabled and on Food Stamps, MediCal and General Relief Programs? Isn't this illegal?This is Judicial Extortion, Judicial Prejudice and Judicial Discrimination against the poor, color, disabled etc which is against the Americans Disability Act. There are so many Dirty Courthouse Scams Plaintiffs cannot begin to mention them all. Again all these scams are discussed throughout this Court Document. And just some of the SCAMS are mentioned below.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
In Court Case BC453664# (Amend Scam)(Post Security Scam) & (Vexatious Litigant Scam): This is an Eviction Court Case in Default (Exhibit 13#, page 2#), Plaintiff refuses to amend the Court Document releasing the time constraints which would release the opposing party of not responding in time or court document performed correctly resulting in a default. This is an Amend Scam. James Blume is held back by Judicial Extortion of a post security and made a Vexatious Litigant. James Blume never amended. The Courts manufactured Court Documents so by making a resubmit dated May 19, 2011 (Exhibit 84#) mailed to the Court because the Court Clerks refused to Court Stamp James Blume's resubmit into an Amended Complaint dated 05/23/2011 which never happened (Exhibit 13#, page2)
In Court Case 30-2012-00566104-CU-CR-CJC# (Bait & Switch Scam)(Amend Scam)(No Trial Scam) : Response to JPMorgan Chase Demurrers dated October 25, 2012 is missing from Court Documents (Exhibit 26#). Judge Rodriguez is trying to get Plaintiff to Amend Demurrers, replace a Second Set (Set II) of Demurrers, Bait & Switch. Another Judge tried to get Plaintiff to Amend the Complaint. Refusal to Amend, resulted in a Dismissal of the Court Case.
In Court Case 10U02548#(Amend Scam)(No Trial Scam) (No Appearances Scam) (Court Documents Not Verified Scam) & (Default Scam): Another Simple Eviction Case against Watt & Garcia. Watt & Garcia's Attorney, Frances Campbell, seldom verifies and certifies her Court Documents and if she does, it is done incorrectly(Exhibit 31 & 32#). According to Judge Kristovich, Plaintiff has 5 days to amend. Refusal to amend to release time constraints for Attorney Campbell's is not certified and verified Court Documents, resulted in a Dismissal of the Court Case. It was Retaliated & Dismissed by Judge Dodson who did not even hear the Court Case(Exhibit 33#). How is this possible? Refusal to Amend, resulted in a Dismissal of the Court Case. Is this legal to force someone to amend to sabotage their own court case?
In Court Cases 8:12-bk-16255-CB (Exhibit 35#) 8:12-bk-18590-CB (Exhibit 37#) (Fake Court Case Trial)(Fake Court Case)(Fake Fee Waiver Denial): Judge Bauer refuses Amend Court Case 8:12-bk-16255-CB(Exhibit 35#) to Court Case 8:12-bk-18590CB(Exhibit 37#) and accept a fee waiver for Court Case 8:12-bk-16255-CB(Exhibit 37#). Plaintiff is informed by Court Clerks that if she is unable to find $306 the Court Case cannot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
continue. Plaintiff borrows $306 from a friend and is forced to file another bankruptcy case(Exhibit 36#). Judge Bauer refuses to honor fee waiver for Blume et. al. on both cases. Why was my first Bankruptcy dismissed? Why are the Bankruptcy Court allow to Discriminate and act in a Prejudice manner against Blume et. al.? Why did the Bankruptcy Court not accept my MC410# and inform us that Federal Courts do not accept MC-410# forms? Is this legal? Isn't this discrimination against the disabled, which is against the ADA? Bankruptcy Case proceeds until fake Court Cases are by Watt & Shimabukuro. For proof, Watt & Shimabukuro Court Cases are fake because they never signed the Complaint and it was never signed under the Penalty of Perjury. Judge Bauer honors Watt & Shimabukuro's fake Court Cases and holds Plaintiff as hostage in her bankruptcy. Her reasons are because she believes the court system is fair and just. For proof, Plaintiff is requesting the tapes or transcript of the Electronic Monitor Recorder per Rule 11. It is evident the California Court System is not fair & just even in our Federal Courts. It is apparent the Federal Courts of California have Judicially Conspired with the Superior Courts of California. Why would Judge Bauer honor this request in Bankruptcy Court? Judge Bauer by her actions must have taken a bribe or why would the Bankruptcy Courts allow one Court Case to affect another?
In Court Cases BC485710# & BC453664#: (Adding and Removing Court Cases Scam) and (Adding and Removing Documents from Court Case to Court Case Scam). In Exhibits 6, 7, 8, & 9#: Adding and removing Court Cases and documents from court case to court case that do not belong is a way Courts hide documents not to be heard. It is a new scam performed by the courts. If Court Documents that are file are placed into another Court Case with simular numbers, it does not exists or is hidden in another court case and not heard. Other Court Cases added and entered into to our Court Cases BC485710# & BC453664# that don't belong (Machikhina vs. Coleman)(Exhibit 6#) (Onewest Bank FSB vs Tomblin et al.)(Exhibit 7, 8 & 9#) and changing decisions on Court Documents (Exhibit 10, 11, 12 & 13). Machikhina vs. Coleman Court Documents BC475710# entered into our Court Case BC485710#. The court case differs by one number. The second number is a 7 on Machikhina vs. Coleman and ours is an 8, but is heard and entered into our Court Docket Register of Actions. For proof, in Exhibit 17# (page 1 of 5) the court case number next to or parallel to the Request for Dismissal reads BC485710#. However the Service List reads on page 4 of 5, LASC Case No. BC475710#, which is Machikhina vs. Coleman . Blume
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
et. al. saw court documents from Machikhina vs. Coleman but the Court removed them from Court Case BC485710#.
Also, Onewest Bank FSB vs Tomblin et al. Court Documents BC453564# entered into our Court Case BC453664#. In Exhibit 7#, our Appellate Courts are forcing us to correct the Court errors an verifies acceptance of the Appeal B251672#. In Exhibit 8#, Becky L Fisher, Supervising Deputy Clerk, is giving illegally advice in the last 2 sentences of her E-Mail to Mr. Rudolph. It states, We are directing appellant to remove the document from filing if he wants the court to consider his response. I don't know how he obtained this filing. First of all, it is illegal for anyone that is not an attorney to give legal advice, especially legal advice that harms our court case. Second, it is extortion to for the Supervising Deputy Clerk refusing to hear our court documents, because we refuse to correct the Court's errors. We do not have access to the courts and we are refused to even be heard before the Court Case begins. And third, Plaintiff's obtained this filing when looking on the internet net and finding Onewest Bank v. Tomblin BC453564 in BC453664 Plaintiff's Court Case. This is consistent with Court Case BC485710#. Documents from Court Case BC475710# were found in Plaintiff's Court Case BC485710# (Exhibit 6#). Just as this document is placed in the Register of Actions, it was taken out Register of Actions. For proof, in Exhibit 17#, it states under the SERVICE LIST second line LASC Case No. BC475710#. THIS PROVES THAT EVIDENCE IS MANUFACTURED, MANIPULATED, DESTROYED AND MOST OF ALL, PLAINTIFF'S CANNOT GET A FAIR TRIAL.
In Exhibit 10 & 12#: These Exhibits 10 & 12# is a request on 12/13/2013 for a Register of Actions. Each Court Case was 4 pages (Exhibit 11 & 13#). However 11 days from 12/11/2013 (Exhibit 13 & 15#) to 12/24/2013 changes drastically. Why? How can the Case Summary for the same case change that drastically? The Courts constantly destroy, manufacture evidence illegally, refuse to rule criminally charges and activities in and during the Court Case and continue to Judicially Terrorize Plaintiffs for bringing it to the Court's attention.
3G. JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS SIGNING THEIR OWN VERIFICATION FORMS AND SENDING MANIPULATED & MANUFACTURED COURT DOCUMENTS:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
In Court Case BC453664 (Exhibit 53#) & BC470365 (Exhibit 34#): 2 Different Court Cases dated 06/17/13 are manufactured by Judge Hess on the same Court Document for the same purpose. Why are 2 different Court Cases dated 06/17/13 on the same Court Document? Why isn't there just one Court Case and 2 Court Documents? Judge Hess is trying to convey to the Justice System that these 2 court cases BC453664# & BC470365# are consolidated (Exhibit 42, 79, 80#). When 2 court cases are listed on the same court document these cases are consolidated. This is Judicial Fraud.
In Court Case BC453664 (Exhibit 53#) & BC470365 (Exhibit 34#): Judge Hess does not sign his Court Document in the Vexatious Litigant Case (BC453664#). There is a rubber stamp which according to CCP 446 (a) personal signature is akin to the CCP128.7 (b) requirement that all papers filed with the court must be signed. BC470365#, the Complaint was not signed by Plaintiffs, Watt et al, but by their attorney, Atty Campbell. Also it was not sign under the penalty of perjury, it was signed Respectfully Submitted. The same was done in Shimabukuro et al. Court Case BC485710#. This is illegal according to CCP 446 (a) personal signature is akin to the CCP128.7 (b) requirement that all papers filed with the court must be signed. These court cases are manufactured fake, illegal and are performed by criminal acts.
In Court Case 10U02548#: Judge Dodson does not sign his Order of Dismissal. William D. Dodson is type in instead of a signature (Exhibit 33#). According to CCP 446 (a) personal signature is akin to the CCP128.7 (b) requirement that all papers filed with the court must be signed. Furthermore how can Judge Dodson make an Order of Dismissal with prejudice when Judge Kristovich heard the Court Case (Exhibit 33#)? These court cases are manufactured, illegal and are performed by criminal acts. Is this legal or a criminal act?
In Exhibit 60 & 61# (BC464831#): Deputy City Attorney Deborah Breithaupt (Exhibit 60#, line 1723 24 25 26 27 28
19)) Court Documents have Date: None, Time: None, Dept: 26 working in concert with Judge Dunn to make sure this Court Case Blume Vs. LAHD is dismissed without being heard or having a Jury Trial by the courts. In Exhibit 61# page 2 of 5, it is rubber stamped James R. Dunn. There is no signature. Plaintiff is not heard because he refuses to preform the Amend Scam. An Ex Parte (Exhibit 61# page 1 of 5, line 21#) is used only for court emergencies. Plaintiff refuses to Amend the Complaint which would put Deputy City Attorney Deborah Breithaupt in Default due to time
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
constraints. Therefore Deputy City Attorney Deborah Breithaupt abuses the law making her own personal error with time constraint and correcting it with an Ex Parte, which is only used for court emergencies according to the courts, for Plaintiff not to have a Jury Trial, dismiss the entire case against LAHD because Plaintiff refuses to Amend his Complaint to reset the time constraints for the Default for Atty Breithaupt. In (Exhibit 61#) page 3 of 5, line 25#, page 4 of 5, line 25#, page 5 of 5, line 23#, Deputy City Attorney Deborah Breithaupt is signing her own Proof of Services, which is illegal. In (Exhibit 61#) page 3 of 5, line 25#, page 4 of 5, line 25#, Deborah Breithaupt name is spelled wrong. It is spelled BREITHUAPT, instead of Breithaupt. In (Exhibit 61#) page 3 of 5,
page 4 of 5, page 5 of 5, Deputy City Attorney Deborah Breithaupt. Plaintiffs do not believe this is Deputy City Attorney Deborah Breithaupt signatures because throughout her signatures on all three Proof of Services, she signs her name without a u. She signs it Breithapt consistently. Is it illegal to sign your own certification and verification of Proof of Service forms throughout the court trial? Is it illegal to forge another person's name? Shouldn't Deputy City Attorney Deborah Breithaupt know how to spell her name?
4. LAHD DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE RENTAL UNITS IN THE ESTATE OF MINE M. BLUME:
The same scenario and same pattern is happening to the Estate of Mine M. Blume. Renters of the Estate of Mine M. Blume with felony records and one that does not even have a contract is able to file Fake Court Cases CCRIS 274072# (Exhibit 47, 70 & 72#) and have access to LAHD when not even paying rent (Exhibit 70 & 72#). Furthermore LAHD does not have Jurisdiction over property that has 3 or less units on a single property lot according to the law states in (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code is 7060. (a) No public entity, as
defined in Section 811.2, shall by statute, ordinance, or regulation, or by administrative action implementing any statute, ordinance or regulation, compel the owner of any residential real property to offer, or to continue to offer, accommodations in the property for rent or lease, except for guestrooms or efficiency units within a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code, if the residential hotel meets all of the following conditions: (1) "Accommodations" means either of the following:
27 28
(A) The residential rental units in any detached physical structure containing four or more residential rental units.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(B) With respect to a detached physical structure containing three or fewer residential rental units, the residential rental units in that structure and in any other structure located on the same parcel of land, including any detached physical structure specified in subparagraph (A).
According to these laws does LAHD have the right to place the Estate of Mine M. Blume in REAP and confiscate rent, allow renter not to pay rent and remain in the rental units for 20 years? These laws are made so small rental units are not compare and held under strict requirements of Multi-Unit and Mega Apartments Building that take in large sums of money as business. Also there is no way that a small 3 unit structure could compete financially against a Multi-unit and Mega Apartment Building. LAHD does not have Jurisdiction and has no right to collect rent from the Rental Units according (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code is 7060.
(a) No public entity, as defined in Section 811.2 Why is LAHD allowed to continue to Judicially Harass Blume et. al. & the Estate of Mine M. Blume for years and stealing money when they have no Jurisdiction? Why does LASC work in concert with LAHD? Is it so LASC can get some kick back/bribe from LAHD? Can the Courts explain this?
5. CREATING FAKE COURT CASES AND CRIMINAL ACTS TO STEAL FROM THE DEAD:
The Complaint by Frances Campbell is an illegal Court Document, because Frances Campbell signed it for Watt & Garcia (BC470365#) and Shimabukuro & Aoki (BC485710#) under Respectfully Submitted There is nothing in the Respectfully Submitted signed Court Complaint by Frances Campbell for both Watt & Garcia (BC470365#) and Shimabukuro & Aoki (BC485710#) that swears to the truth of the allegations contained in the pleading or Complaint signed. There is no statement
under penalty of perjury that the matter therein are true. We are held hostage in Court being sued by
2 Complaints that has no sworn statement under the penalty of perjury. This is Judicial Facilitation and Judicial Terroism for Theft. By not having this sworn statement under the penalty of perjury Judge Hess is saying it is okay to lie in his court room. There is no need for Due Process and Procedural Law in the court and he has proven it several times by the opposing counsels illegal court documents, the lies and criminal behavior. PURSUANT TO SECTION TITLE 18, U.S.C. 4 MISPRISION OF FELONY: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony
cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both] Per the above law; and the Plaintiff Exposing
the Tricks, Tactics, and Criminal Acts... you have knowledge and with your oath of office and to the People to find out, to know, or PURSUANT TO THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1714.10: A CIVIL CONSPIRACY AND PENAL CODE 182, A Felony, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY FOR FINANCIAL GAIN TO SELL DECISIONS WHILE VIOLATING THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS... in general a civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more person to accomplish by concerted action a criminal or unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by criminal or unlawful means. (just like this court or hearing allows and practices) According to the law and all other Court Documents doesn't a Complaint have to have the sworn statement under the penalty of perjury? Why does Attorney Campbell write Respectfully Submitted instead of a sworn statement? By law is this legal? By law doesn't the person/plaintiff have to sign their own Complaint not their attorney? This is Judicial Fraud, Judicial Harassment, Judicial Facilitation & Judicial R.I.C.O. According to CCP 446 (a) personal signature is akin to the CCP 128.7 (b) requirement that all papers filed with the court must be signed. The written law is as follows:
Verification, unlike a lawyer's subscription requirement, a pleading may be verified by a party. This is a statement under penalty of perjury that the matters therein stated are true. Verification creates special obligations affecting the veritying party--- but not the counsel of record, who has independent obligations upon signing a pleading. The verifying party thus swears to the truth of the allegations contained in the pleading she, he signs. CCP 466 (a)RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.1306(C) : The moving party
has already previously provided the court with true and correct copies of the court files and cases of which judicial notice is allowed and requested. In other words, I want my Court Cases and Files at my Trial! Possible, the moving party hereby request and demands that the clerk and gives me legal cause or for the Causation for the aforementioned files of listed cases in this Formal Complaint to be in department _24__# of the court for all my Hearings listed in this Formal Complaint already.
6. CREATE FAKE COURT CASES & CRIMINAL ACTS TO MAKE PEOPLE IN PRO PER VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND NOT BE HEARD IN COURTS:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
It is evident when one just reviews Exhibit 34#, Blume v. Watt BC453664, Order on Submitted Matter filed JUN 17 2013 in Los Angeles Superior Court. First of all, on page 2 and 3 of the Court Document is a list of a series of court trials 1 through 11. They are either eviction cases or related to the eviction cases and nothing is done. The cases begin in 2008 and continue today as of 2014 (6 years) and again nothing is done . Instead of ruling on these court cases even though most of these cases are in Default, the Judges receive a bribe and refuse to rule. A bribe does not have to be only financial, but can be to seek a position or keep a position, promotion, favor and to be given favor later. For proof, it has been going on for 6 years and nothing is done on simple eviction cases and Judges that fail to rule on them. Instead of ruling on the cases and evicting these renters with felony records that falsify evidence, commit perjury and make court cases that are Civil Court Cases into Criminal Court Cases. The criminal and illegal acts from renters, attorneys, agencies and Judges, they silence We the People with Judicial Retaliation, Judicial Terrorism, Judicial Facilitation, Judicial R.I.C.O. and make We the People Vexatious Litigant illegally. Not only is it evident that the courts do not hear We the People, but they prove it by enforcing the label of Vexatious Litigant illegally, and refuse any new written court documents and refuse We the People not to be heard. How does a simple eviction case BC453664# sit in court for 3 years, with 2 sets of attorneys (Daniel P. Tusa, Esq. from Early, Maslach & O'Shea and Cyril Czajkowskyj & Robert J. Rice from Veatch Carlson, LLP) from Farmers Insurance Attorneys, and not be heard? How does a Court Case continue for 3 years and now determine to place a Vexatious Litigant on the Plaintiff in the middle of a court case? By law does the same Judge, Judge Hess, hear both cases the simple eviction and the Vexatious Litigant? By law is this a conflict of interest? How does 2 separate court cases the eviction filed in 01/24/2011 Court Case BC453664# and the Vexatious Litigant Court Case filed 06/17/2013 have the same Court Case Number BC453664#? By law is this possible and legal?
Also Judicial Conspiracy, Judicial Terrorism, Judicial Bullying and Judicial R.I.C.O. occurs when Farmer Insurance Attorneys do nothing to defend us and other agencies such as LAHD that have no Jurisdiction according to the law which states in (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code is 7060. (a) No public entity, as defined in Section 811.2. LAHD perform illegal Court Cases by renters not on the contract and are not paying rent to LAHD or to the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Estate of Mine M. Blume. Farmer Insurance Attorneys Rice, Czajkowsky & Tusa, Playa Vista Property Management Co., and LAHD assist the renters who are destroying the Estate and not paying rent (Exhibit 47, 48, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76 & 77#). This is Judicial Entrapment and Judicial Retaliation. How can Plaintiffs pay the mortgage on the Estate, make repairs on the Estate, get the Estate out of LAHD/REAP and protect the Estate against these attorneys that are not representing the Estate? By law is this legal? The attorneys are only protecting the interests of Farmer's Insurance, the Courts, Judges, LAHD, LAPD, the District Attorney's Office, Playa Vista Property Management et al. Furthermore if LAHD & Attorney Rice gives Playa Vista Property Management Funds from the Account of Mine M. Blume's Estate (Exhibit 47 & 48) , is LAHD by law responsible, liable and have a fiduciary duty for making sure the Estate is fixed in a timely fashion. Nothing has been done. If the renters are not stealing by not paying rent and bribing Judges, LAHD is stealing by collecting rental checks with no jurisdiction, Playa Vista Property Management Inc. steals money by not doing any repairs and leaving the Estate in REAP with LAHD, the attorneys that do not have signed MC-50# forms from Farmer's Insurance and the Courts et. al. are all making money from the Estate of Mine M. Blume. By law is any of this legal or make any sense? This is a scam to bankrupt properties and estates by Judicial Conspiracy, Judicial Terrorism, Judicial Bullying, Judicial Facilitation and Judicial R.I.C.O.
Exhibit 34#, Blume v. Watt BC453664, Order on Submitted Matter filed JUN 17 2013 in Los Angeles Superior Court does not meet the Criteria of a Vexatious Litigant according to CCP 391(b)(2), it states same defendant or defendants. Watt & Garcia are listed in 3 cases: case 1
(08U016492#), case 2 (10U02548#), & case 10 (08M12480#).
Case 10 (08M12480#) This case does not meet the criteria of CCP 391 & CCP 391(b)(1) because
24 25 26 27 28
it states Appeals Cases and Small Claims Cases do NOT count. It is because Attorney Campbell and defendants have no merit to their court cases BC470365# or BC485710# because their Complaint is not signed by them, but by Attorney Campbell which is illegal. Plaintiffs have to sign their own Complaints and the Courts accepts, entertains and hears illegal court cases with criminal acts, which is illegal. Attorney Campbell and Watt et al. list several of court cases of various Judges that fail to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
hear or hear a case partially and dismiss the case because they have no true evidence of a Vexatious Litigant that they have to add court cases that do NOT count and the kitchen sink. This proves the weakness of their case when Defendants and Attorney Campbell have to list cases that do NOT count and how truly the court system is they even allow substandard work from an Attorney. This means the Courts are Unjustly making James Blume a Vexatious Litigant on 2 cases, case 1 (08U016492#) and case 2 (10U02548#). Furthermore Exhibit 34#, Blume v. Watt BC453664, Order on Submitted Matter filed JUN 17 2013 in Los Angeles Superior Court is not signed by Judge Hess which is illegal. In Exhibit 55# Plaintiff's receive a NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO DECLARE JAMES BLUME A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, REQUIRING HIM TO POST SECURITY AND PROHIBITING HIM FOR FILING ANY NEW LITIGATION WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT. If the funds, rental income, monies to fix the estate LAHD/REAP of the Estate of Mine M. Blume are going to LAHD, going to the renters because they are not paying rent and going to Playa Vista Property Management, how is the Estate of Mine M. Blume able to pay mortgage, fix the estate to get it out of LAHD/REAP and post security to the Courts for James Blume as a Vexatious Litigant to defend the Estate as the manager. This is Judicial Entrapment for Plaintiff's and the legacy of Mine M. Blume to make sure Plaintiffs are desolate, poor, live in poverty and to lose the Estate of Mine M. Blume to Corrupt Crooks of the Judicial Justice System that want to steal from the dead.
7. FAKE COURT CASES BC470365# ET. AL.:

The Los Angeles Superior Court and Orange County Superior Court have corrupt Judges Courthouses and Courtrooms. It is evident if one just reads, reviews and researches the claims, evidence and the transcripts or tapes of the Electronic Recording Monitor per Rule 11. How does an Estate have difficulties evicting tenants when they are not on the contract, destroying the property, subletting the their units, changing the locks to the units and not paying rent? By law is this legal? A Complaint is filed without a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury and not signed by the Plaintiff, but by their attorney? By law is this legal? How are tenants able to file fake & fraudulent court documents, have fake & fraudulent court trials such as Watt & Garcia (BC470365#) already requesting a dismissal and Shimabukuro & Aoki (BC485710#) and hold court trials with No Appearances from either side, the Plaintiffs or the Defendants and make up the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
rules as they go along? Because these Judges fail to rule and allow these renters with felony records to allow them to remain in the Estate so the Courts of California can sale and steal property from the Dead. Because Attorney Campbell is acting in favor of the Courts, because Blume et. al. files these Court Cases are against these Judges that both fail to rule or rule justly, the Courts welcome illegal criminal acts and behavior of LAHD, Police Departments, Tenants with felony records, Farmers Insurance Company attorneys, other Judges, Courts and agencies to harm Blume et. al. By law is this legal? NO APPEARANCES means no notification and the Court trial is dropped, or dismissed. By law, doesn't someone from either party must appear to continue with the Court Trial? The Judicial Arrogance, Criminal and Illegal Behavior, Judicial Conspiracy, Judicial Terrorism and Judicial Bullying continues in Exhibits 2, 15, 49, 50, 51, 52 & 54# by NO APPEARANCES by either party. If no parties appear to the hearings, then the case is dropped. Someone from either party has to appear for the hearing. Plaintiffs are not notified to appear, which makes the hearing illegal. This means a Judge can have his own trial without anyone being notified, without any evidence, without any one attending, not know anything and think these Judges can come to a fair verdict and decision? Impossible, this is Criminal and Illegal. Can the Courts explain this by law? If Plaintiffs are notified to appear it is performed after the court date. In Exhibit 55# (page 1, line 23), Attorney Campbell is notifying Plaintiffs of a Court Date on May 6, 2013. However the Court Document is written on May 9, 2013 (page 2, line 19) and certified by Victoria Castrejon on May 9, 2012 (page 3, line 28). How can Plaintiffs attend court when the Court Document is written 3 days after the Court Date and certified & verified by Victoria Castrejon on May 9, 2012 approximately a year before the court date and before the Court Document was written by Attorney Campbell? The Court Document is illegal and a criminal act. By law, if we are notified legally, it is an legal act.
Also in Exhibit 49, 50 & 51#, Judge Daniel J. Buckley Minutes Entered 01/22/14 are sent are not certified or verified by the Deputy Clerk by any one of the 3 clerks listed Sherri R. Carter (Executive Officer/Clerk), L. Ismael (Deputy Clerk) and Armando Garcia. In Exhibit 2# (page 4,) L. Ismael, Deputy Clerk, did not sign the certification, it is stamped. This is illegal according to CCP 446 (a) personal signature is akin to the CCP128.7 (b) requirement that all papers filed with the court must be signed. This was NOT done, and therefore illegal. Also, be advised, A Proof of Service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
requires a signature and again Sherri R. Carter (Executive Officer/Clerk) is listed, but with no signature as required by law. Furthermore this proves Conspiracy Judicial Fraud, Judicial Retaliation, Judicial Conspiracy, Judicial Terrorism, Judicial Facilitation and Judicial R.I.C.O. If Judge Daniel J. Buckley heard the Electronic Recording Monitor on the Vexatious Litigant court date on May 15, 2013 documented in Exhibit 34# (page 1, paragraph 1, line 2#) and Exhibit 55# (page 2, line 12#), he would know that on 05/15/2013, the Motion for Vexatious Litigant was not heard. On May 3, 2013, (Exhibit 35#) it was a court black out date. May 6, 2013 James Blume was sick and Mary Blume called into court at 8:30 am and spoke to Jeff. On May 15, 2013 as we began to discuss the court case the Courthouse had a fire or emergency drill at 10:00 am. Everyone had to evacuate the Courthouse and wait outside. The drill lasted one hour. Judge Hess left our case for last and well into the lunch hour. The Vexatious Litigant Motion was never heard or discussed. For proof, per Rule 11, we are requesting the Electronic Recording Monitor tapes or transcripts. This will prove no such discussion was heard. By law is it legal to make people in Pro Per a Vexatious Litigant when the Court Case was never heard and there is no proof of it being heard?
8. VEXATIOUS LITIGANT SCAM & 4 PART TEST (Established in DeLong).

1.) The test requires that the trial court afford the plaintiff minimum due process notice: Plaintiffs were not notified to appear, which makes the hearing illegal. With No Appearance, this means a Judge can have his own trial without anyone being notified, without any evidence, without any one attending, not know anything and come to a fair verdict and decision. This happens in Exhibit 2, 49, 50 & 51# with Judge Buckley, Exhibit 34# with Judge Hess and Exhibit 54# Judge Boren. Impossible, this Criminal and Illegal. If Plaintiffs are notified to appear it is performed after the court date. In Exhibit 55# (page 1, line 23), Attorney Campbell is notifying Plaintiffs of a Court Date on May 6, 2013. However the Court Document is written on May 9, 2013 (page 2, line 19) and certified by Victoria Castrejon on May 9, 2012 (page 3, line 28). How can Plaintiffs attend court when the Court Document is written 3 days after the Court Date and certified & verified by Victoria Castrejon on May 9, 2012 approximately a year before the court date and before the Court Document was written by Attorney Campbell? The Court Document is illegal and a criminal act. If we are notified legally, it is an illegal act. Plaintiffs did not receive notification and usually are never receive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
notification and if we accidently receive notification it is performed illegally or without certification and verification Exhibits 2, 49, 50, 51#(Buckley) 32, 55# (Campbell). 2.) an opportunity to be heard: In Exhibit 34, page 4 of 9, first paragraph claims the hearing was
held on May 15, 2013. On May 15, 2013 as we began to discuss the court case the Courthouse had a fire or emergency drill at 10:00 am. Everyone had to evacuate the Courthouse and wait outside. The drill lasted one hour. Judge Hess left our case for last and well into the lunch hour. The Vexatious Litigant Motion was never heard or discussed. For proof, per Rule 11, we are requesting a copy of the Electronic Recording Monitor tapes or transcripts. This will prove no such discussion was heard. On May 3, 2013, (Exhibit 45#) it was a court black out date. Plaintiffs were forced to waste gas and time to attend a court date that was scheduled on a court black out date. This was done maliciously by Attorney Campbell. Judge Hess has the wrong date instead of May 8, it is May 6, 2013. On May 6, 2013 James Blume was sick and Mary Blume called into court at 8:30 am and spoke to Jeff. Judge Hess does not have the correct dates. Plaintiffs were not given an opportunity to be heard. 3.) and an adequate record for review, which should include a showing "that the litigant's activities were numerous and abusive." In Exhibit 34#, page 5 (bottom) and 6 (whole page) lists 11 Court Cases. 4 of the 11 Court Cases that do not qualify are Court Cases are 2, 3, 10 & 11# according to Judge Hess. That leaves 7 Court Cases: case 1# (Blume v. Watt), case 4# (Blume v. Shimabukuro), case 5# (Blume v. LAHD), case 6# (Blume v. Aoki), case 7# (Blume v. Dodson), case 8# (Blume v. McKay) and case 9# (Blume v. Levine). According to the rules and criteria of CCP 391(b)(2) it states repeatedly relitigates against same defendant or defendants. Not one of the names match. So how are these cases numerous and if these cases are not numerous how can these cases be abusive according to the criteria of Vexatious Litigant? Attorney Campbell and Watt et al. have bribe Judge Hess. Attorney Campbell and Watt et al. went Forum Shopping to find Judge Hess who has not rule on a Default Court Case Number BC453664# for 3 years, which already violates Constitution and the Civil Rights of Plaintiffs. It violates Plaintiffs 1st Amendment Rights (to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, 6th Amendment Rights (speedy and public trial), 7th Amendment Rights (a Jury Trial), 8th Amendment Rights (excessive fines imposed, cruel & unusual punishment) 9th Amendment Rights (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) 14th Amendment (nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law) and American Disability Act (A.D.A.) 1990.
4.) The trial court must make "substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's actions," and the order must be "narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered." (DeLong at 114748.): The substantive findings from the nature of the litigant's action is a simple eviction from renters who are not paying rent, destroying the property, creating a hostile living environment, using agencies like LAHD illegally and that are not happy living in the rental unit and filing fraudulent, illegal Court Documents.
In Court Case BC453664#: When Plaintiffs find the Courts in error and petitions the Court for a redress of grievance, the Courts will make that Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant even if he may not fit the criteria. So why was it done illegally? This violates his 1st & 8th Amendment Rights. James Blume did not have enough cases to make him a Vexatious Litigant; and was done, executed, and allowed to silence him for Whistle Blowing. For proof, several of the Court Cases listed in Exhibit 34# that did not make the criteria was listed. If the court case such as a Small Claims Court Case does not meet the criteria then it should not have been listed! Yet, it was listed, to illegally set him up and violated his rights! Most, if not all, were eviction Court Cases. James Blume was working as a manager of an Estate. This was his job for many years. When cases are dismissed and not heard, which is all of the court cases, these cases do not count because they were never heard. Most of the cases for James Blume, he has requested a jury trial and did not receive one. This violates James Blume 7th Amendment to a Jury Trial. It is obvious that LAHD and the Courts are working In Concert to make Plaintiffs and their legacy desolate by stealing property and stealing property of the dead.
In Court Case BC453664#: What Plaintiffs find so Criminal and illegal in this particular Court Case is how does one Judge, Judge Hess and only Judge Hess hear all three court trials, Eviction Case in a Default (BC453664#), Vexatious Litigant (BC453664#) and Watt et al. v. Blume et al. (BC470365#)? Judge Hess gets to hear the Eviction case already in Default that he refused to Rule on since March or April of 2011. Why does it take Judge Hess 3 years to Rule on an eviction case
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
already in Default? It is because Judge Hess is receiving a bribe. The tenants live, sublet, destroy the rental unit and live there for free in return the renters pay LAHD & the Judge a bribe. What the Plaintiffs find that is illegal and criminal is that James Blume's Vexatious Litigant Court Case has the same Court Case number as the Default Eviction Court Case. How can there be 2 court Cases on one Court Case Number BC453664#? Jose Castaneda's Vexatious Litigant Case was filed a several Jose Castaneda's that were not him, but others with the same name. By law is this legal? CASE 1#; Blume v. Watt, LASC case 08U016492#, filed 12-09-08, is a Simple Eviction Case and All Parties are in Pro-Per. First of all, the date of court trial is wrong. It is not 12/09/08. It is on 01/09/09 (Exhibit 24#). On this Court Document it states the Court Dated 01-09-09 at 8:30 AM, and proves Attorney Campbell has the wrong date and all parties are in Pro-Per at the bottom of the page. Jenny Chea, the Deputy, does not sign the Court Document nor stamps her name, it is simply typed in. Where is her signature? Then Judge Dodson, for a Judicial Bribe, hires and allows Attorney Azuka Uzoh the last day of trial to represent the opposing Party without an MC-50 form, as required by law, which also displays Illegal, criminal acts, Judicial Prejudice, Discriminatory practices (Just like the Castaneda's Case). In Exhibit 25# clearly displays, and proves that Kathy Watt et al., the Judge Dodson and the courts committed illegal and criminal acts on last day of Court on 01/09/09, because the certification of notice that Attorney Azuka Uzoh was representing in court Kathy Watt et al. was performed days after the court date. The court date was 01/09/09 and the form was filed 3 days after the court date and mailed 3 days after the court date on 01/12/09. Furthermore, the Court Document is not even signed by Mildred Atkins-Cooley which is also an illegal and criminal act. In this court case Plaintiff's rights have been violated to have a Predictive and Purchased Verdict or Decision by the Courts and Judge Dodson. Judge Dodson & LAHD worked in concert by using a former LAHD case by Luis Terris and combined Watt et al LAHD/REAP case. This is a Violation of 14th & 8th Amendment. Also this proves that a Court Verdict or Decision can be Purchased for a Predictive. This Judicially Ambushed my court case, my rights, and the laws to lose by the use of Judicial Facilitation and Judicial Fraud, which is a Felony. Because of this this case, Plaintiff filed a CCP 170.6 Prejudice against Judge Dodson at the end of 08U016492#. The reason for the eviction was because Watt et al. changed the locks on the rental unit not allowing management to enter with permission & warning, remodeling the rental unit and destructive &
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
disruptive behavior. For proof, Plaintiff is requesting to hear or see official transcripts from the Court's Electronic Recording Monitor on this Court Case.
CASE 2#; Blume v. Watt, LASC 10U02548# is the same court case filed again (LASC case 08U016492#, filed 12-09-08, is a Simple Eviction Case) , filed on 03/02/10. In Exhibit 31# (4th paragraph) is Court Minutes from Judge Kristovich which is forcing the Amend Scam. Judge Kristovich refuses to hear the Court Case until Plaintiff amends his complaint because Attorney Campbell's Court Documents are not certified or verified. For proof, Plaintiff is requesting to hear or see official transcripts from the Court's Electronic Recording Monitor on this Court Case. Judge Kristovich even states during the trial that Attorney Campbell's Court Documents are not certified or verified. In Exhibit 32# is a Proof of Service for Attorney Campbell's Court Documents. Monica Trani did not sign the Proof of Service, so Judge Kristovich refused to hear the case until Plaintiff amended his complaint because if Judge Kristovich the act would be illegal and criminal. Judge Kristovich was hoping that Plaintiff would amend his Court Documents so it would release the time constraints of Attorney Campbell illegal court documents and that after the court documents were amended in 5 days that Judge Kristovich could hear the court case. Plaintiff should have won his court case because Attorney Campbell's Court Documents are not certified or verified. To not not certified or verified Court Documents is in Violation of CCP 446 (a) personal signature is akin to the CCP128.7 (b) requirement that all papers filed with the court must be signed. . After Judge Kristovich heard the Court Case and discovered Attorney Campbell's Court Documents are not certified or verified, she refused to rule in Plaintiff favor. However in Exhibit 33#, Judge Kristovich does not rule on the Court Case, but Judge Dodson who did not hear any part of the Court Case and has already a CCP 170.6 Prejudice against Judge Dodson at the end of 08U016492# from the Plaintiff. How can Judge Dodson make a ruling on a court case he did not hear? How can Judge Dodson make a ruling on a court case when Plaintiff has already filed a CCP 170.6 Prejudice against Judge Dodson at the end of 08U016492#? Furthermore this was not an Appeal's Court Case or Appellate Case . It was the same court case filed again and again nothing is done. This Court Case was never went to trial and was dismissed. So it was never heard in court.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
CASE 3#; Blume v. Watt, BV028409#, filed 08-25-10, which is Judicial Fraud and fraud upon the courts to allow this to be entered as evidence. Appeals Cases and Small Claims cases are NOT considered or count in a Vexatious Litigant Court Case. Why even list this one? This case does not meet the criteria of CCP 391 & CCP 391(b)(1) It is because Attorney Campbell and defendants have no merit to their court cases BC470365# or BC48710# because their Complaint is not signed by them, but by Attorney Campbell which is illegal. Plaintiffs have to sign their own Complaints and the Courts accepts, entertains and hears illegal court cases with criminal acts, which is illegal. Attorney Campbell and Watt et al. list BV028409# because they have no true evidence of a Vexatious Litigant that they have to add court cases that do NOT count and the kitchen sink. This proves the weakness of their case when Defendants and Attorney Campbell have to list cases that do NOT count and how truly the court system is they even allow substandard work from an Attorney. Plaintiff is requesting $1,000.00 in sanctions for each case written in the plot of Vexatious Litigant that does not apply. This Appeal was denied based on a Bribe! For proof, see the court transcripts of Electronic Recording Monitor of all parties! There isn't any! Plaintiff was locked out of the Court which is common judicial practice and tactic, as it was done to Jose Castaneda's case too! Instead, per the court minutes Attorney Greta Curtis was hired by the Appeals Court to represent Plaintiff. Be advised, Only people in Pro-Per get, are and were locked out their Court Cases! This Court Case was never went to trial and was dismissed. So it was never heard in court. Also Jury Trial was requested, but never given.
CASE 4#; Blume v. Shimabukuro, case BS 131444#, was a Hearing in Morning for a TRO, filed
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 52 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS
04/08/11. Why is this Court Case listed? This Court Case has nothing to do with Watt et al. It is a related case to Shimabukuro et al., but it has nothing to do with Watt et al.? According to CCP 391(b)(2), it states same defendant or defendants. Shimabukuro et al. is not Watt et al. and Watt et al. is not Shimabukuro et al. Judge Carol Boas Goodson refused to hear Plaintiff. Judge Carol Boas Goodson informed Plaintiff to return in the afternoon. Plaintiff informed the Courts he could not, because he was ill and needed medication. For proof, Plaintiff is requesting the court transcripts of Electronic Recording Monitor for this court case! Again, Plaintiff is requesting another $1,000.00 in sanctions for each case written in the plot of Vexatious Litigant that does not apply. According to CCP 391(b)(2), it states same defendant or defendants. Shimabukuro et al. is not Watt et al. and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Watt et al. is not Shimabukuro et al. This Court Case was never went to trial and was dismissed. So it was never heard in court.
CASE 5#; Blume v. Los Angeles Housing Dept. LASC, case BC 464831, filed 07/05/11. This Court Case has nothing to do with Watt et al. and therefore does not apply to this plot of Vexatious Litigant. According to CCP 391(b)(2), it states same defendant or defendants. LAHD is not Watt et al. and Watt et al. is not LAHD. LAHD has no Jurisdiction on the Property and Estate of Mine M. Blume because the Estate of Mine M. Blume property that has 3 or less units on a single property lot according to the law states in (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code is 7060. (a) No public entity, as defined in Section 811.2 Judge Dunn and the Courts sabotaged my Case(s) by the use of Judicial Facilitation, Judicial Fraud, and criminal acts of Judicial Conspiracy by Judge James Dunn and City Attorney Deborah Breithaupt. For absolute and indisputable proof see Plaintiff's Court Document sent by City Attorney Deborah Breithaupt. In Exhibit 60 & 61 #, there is no time or date to appear for Court. How can one attend court when they are not informed or given illegal court documents to attend court? In Exhibit 61# City Attorney Deborah Breithaupt signs her own Proof of Service. This is illegal and a Criminal Act. Also City Attorney Deborah Breithaupt acts as if there actually was a Court Trial. For proof there was not a Court Trial, Plaintiff is requesting the court transcripts of Electronic Recording Monitor for this court case! How can City Attorney Deborah Breithaupt have a Court Trial with No Date or Time (Exhibit 60#, lines 16 & 19) ? In Exhibit 60#, lines 25 & 26 states Opposition is not drawn in conformity with California law and
contains irrelevant and improper matters that are mostly unintelligible. How can City Attorney Deborah
Breithaupt make a statement and use words such as unintelligible and phrases like conformity with California law when Attorney Briethaupt cannot spell or sign her name correctly, signs her own Proof of Service and has fake Court Trials with no date or time? In (Exhibit 61#) page 3 of 5, line 25#, page 4 of 5, line 25#, Deborah Breithaupt name is spelled wrong. It is spelled BREITHUAPT, instead of Breithaupt. In (Exhibit 61#) page 3 of 5, page 4 of 5, page 5 of 5, Deputy City
Attorney Deborah Breithaupt. Plaintiffs do not believe this is Deputy City Attorney Deborah Breithaupt signatures because throughout her signatures on all three Proof of Services, she signs her
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
name without a u. She signs it Breithapt consistently. It is illegal to sign your own certification and verification of Proof of Service forms throughout the court trial.
Again, Plaintiff is requesting another $1,000.00 in sanctions for each case written in the plot of Vexatious Litigant that does not apply. According to CCP 391(b)(2), it states same defendant or defendants. LAHD is not Watt et al. and Watt et al. is not LAHD. This Court Case was never went to trial and was dismissed. So it was never heard in court. Also Jury Trial was requested, but never given.
CASE 6#; Blume v. Aoki et al., LASC case 11U03997#, filed 03/29/11. This Court Case was Already in Default, and I won per the Defendant's own Attorney admissions of guilt that he was in Default! In Exhibit 58# item 5, on his own Attorney, Attorney's Robert Reed, on his own UD-150 form, he writes, admits and states .... PLEASE SET AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! At the bottom of the page of the UD-150 form, it states by law that Shimabukuro is in Default! Plaintiff informed Judge Ongkeko that Shimabukuro et al., is in Default, Shimabukuro is not on the rental contract and advised Judge that all parties wanted a Jury Trial! Instead, Judge Ongkeko heard the case in his Office and NOT in court, refused any trial, and dropped the case without a Jury Trial! Judge Ongkeko dismissed illegally while a case was in Default! This is Criminal. For proof, Plaintiff is requesting the court transcripts of Electronic Recording Monitor for this court case! Again, Plaintiff is requesting another $1,000.00 in sanctions for each case written in the plot of Vexatious Litigant that does not apply. According to CCP 391(b)(2), it states same defendant or defendants. Shimabukuro et al. is not Watt et al. and Watt et al. is not Shimabukuro et al. Again, Plaintiff is requesting another $1,000.00 in sanctions for each case written in the plot of Vexatious Litigant that does not apply. According to CCP 391(b)(2), it states same defendant or defendants. LAHD is not Watt et al. and Watt et al. is not LAHD. This Court Case was never went to trial and was dismissed. So it was never heard in court. Also Jury Trial was requested, but never given.
CASE 7#; Blume v. Judge William Dodson et al., LASC CASE BC 464832#, filed on 07/05/11. This court case was in Default, at Santa Monica Courthouse, the Judge ordered me NOT to speak or threatened to arrest me! Even though I tried to talk... the Judge waived his hands, using Non-Verbal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cues... and put his finger over his mouth to be silent in his court. threatened me with arrest! To prove I am telling the truth, I was NOT even sworn in by law when I attended court, violating Procedural Law! This proves I was threaten and was NOT supposed to be in Court in the City of Santa Monica at my Hearing against Dodson! The court escorted me out in the middle of my own hearing! For proof, I was only allowed to talk for 3 minutes, and present my whole case! This is Criminal. For proof, Plaintiff is requesting the court transcripts of Electronic Recording Monitor for this court case! Again, Plaintiff is requesting another $1,000.00 in sanctions for each case written in the plot of Vexatious Litigant that does not apply. According to CCP 391(b)(2), it states same defendant or defendants. Dodson et al. is not Watt et al. and Watt et al. is not Dodson et al. This Court Case was never went to trial and was dismissed. So it was never heard in court. Also Jury Trial was requested, but never given.
CASE 8#; Blume v. McKay et al, LASC case #BC 473026, filed 11-08-11, took place in Orange County at the Lamoreaux Justice Center. I won this case, but was forced to lose this case by Criminal Arrest and threats from the courthouse and Judges! I was told NEVER to return to this courthouse again where Judges lie in this Jurisdiction too! For proof, Plaintiff is requesting the court transcripts of Electronic Recording Monitor for this court case! Again, Plaintiff is requesting another $1,000.00 in sanctions for each case written in the plot of Vexatious Litigant that does not apply. According to CCP 391(b)(2), it states same defendant or defendants. Dodson et al. is not Watt et al. and Watt et al. is not Dodson et al. This Court Case was never went to trial and was dismissed. So it was never heard in court. Also no Jury Trial was given
CASE 9#; Blume v. Judge Levine, I was barred from entering the court and asked to wait outside. This is an old trick to place me in an Engineered Default for me to lose my case by criminal tactics to violate rights to come to a Predictive and Purchased decision! This Judge even threaten me, stating
I'm going to treat you like an Attorney! How? If I never went to Law School, No Law Degree? And I
am NOT licensed to practice law??? How dumb is that??? I won this case, due to criminal acts by Judges Levine and Ongkeko dropped it! For proof, Plaintiff is requesting the court transcripts of Electronic Recording Monitor for this court case! Again, Plaintiff is requesting another $1,000.00 in sanctions for each case written in the plot of Vexatious Litigant that does not apply. According to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CCP 391(b)(2), it states same defendant or defendants. Dodson et al. Judge Levine is not Watt et al. and Judge Levine is not Dodson et al. This Court Case was never went to trial and was dismissed. So it was never heard in court. Also Jury Trial was requested, but never given.
CASE 10#; Blume v. Watt, case 08M12480#, filed 11/23/08, a Small Claims Case placed in this Complaint just like the Jose Castaneda's case! This is Judicial Fraud, Appeals Cases and Small Claims cases are NOT considered or count in a Vexatious Litigant Court Case. Why even list this one? This case does not meet the criteria of CCP 391 & CCP 391(b)(1) It is because Attorney Campbell and defendants have no merit to their court cases BC470365# or BC485710# because their Complaint is not signed by them, but by Attorney Campbell which is illegal according to CCP 446 (a) personal signature is akin to the CCP128.7 (b) requirement that all papers filed with the court must be signed. . Plaintiffs have to sign their own Complaints and the Courts accepts, entertains and hears illegal court cases with criminal acts, which is illegal. Attorney Campbell and Watt et al. list 08M12480# because they have no true evidence of a Vexatious Litigant that they have to add court cases that do NOT count and the kitchen sink. This proves the weakness of their case when Defendants and Attorney Campbell have to list cases that do NOT count and how truly the court system is they even allow substandard work from an Attorney. Plaintiff is requesting another $1,000.00 in sanctions for each case written in the plot of Vexatious Litigant that does not apply. Blume v. New York Minute, case LAM02M18999, filed 04/18/03, Small Claims Case too, AND I WON! See Commissioner Murry Gross, Presiding. I got my check! CASE 11#; Blume v. Los Angeles Superior Court, NOT TRUTHFUL!!! (9th Circuit) I and others similarity situated tried to file in Supreme Court, but was NOT heard. I challenge this Petition, Declaration, or Filing and the Party's correctness involved to create this inaccurate and Fraudulent Vexatious Case by the use of Judicial Fraud, using Judicial Entrapment Tactics that was illegally verified by breaking the law under CCP 446 (a) personal signature is akin to the CCP128.7 (b) requirement that all papers filed with the court must be signed. As to each of the LASC cases and others in Orange County cases, the court takes Judicial Notice of all cases, files, records, the Judicial Fraud, and Judicial Facilitation used in pursuant to James Blume's Judicial Stalking under Evidence Code 452(d), and the true version for a Criminal Investigation of Judicial Misconduct to Engineer Vexatious Litigant Cases that are Engineered against the People in Pro-Per to silence us for Whistle- 56 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Blowing based on Judicial Bribery and Judicial Entrapment Scams! Defendant's have asserted Evidence, Arguments, Charges, and Proof that Proves that Defendant Blume DOES NOT qualifies as a Vexatious Litigant under subsection, (1),(2), &(3) of CCP 391 (b). As a matter of fact, there are no Signatures by law, by law under Rule 11 on the order, but Block Print from a Rubber Stamp; which proves its Judicial Fraud and a lie to use the law incorrectly to silence me and violate my rights! For proof its a lie and to confirm the lie in court, the Judge even refused to sign his own Order by Law, under CCP 446 (a) personal signature is akin to the CCP128.7 (b) requirement that all papers filed with the court must be signed. breaking the law in his own court!!! The Criminal Act of the Judge, that even refuses to sign his own Papers, Orders, or Judgments, that's required by law!!! For proof, Plaintiff is requesting the court transcripts of Electronic Recording Monitor for this court case! Again, Plaintiff is requesting another $1,000.00 in sanctions for each case written in the plot of Vexatious Litigant that does not apply. According to CCP 391(b)(2), it states same defendant or defendants. Los Angeles Superior Court is not Watt et al. and Watt et al. is not Los Angeles Superior Court. This Court Case was never went to trial and was dismissed. So it was never heard in court.
9. FORUM SHOPPING FOR A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT JUDGE & THE COURTS FIT THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT BEHAVIOR & CRITERIA.
Attorney Campbell went Forum Shopping for a crooked Vexatious Litigant Judge, Judge Hess. Judge Hess does not care if he violates the Constitution of United States because it comes naturally for him and the Judges in California. It was understood by the Courts et. al. and Attorney Campbell
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
that this court case BC470365# and BC485710# have to end in Settlements because are too criminal acts that have to be performed that tainted these Court Cases with illegal acts of Due Process and Procedural Law. Watt et. al. owes the Estate of Mine M. Blume $65,780.00 (1,495.00 x 44 months) plus 10% according to the rental agreement, which is $72,358.00. Aoki owes $ 27, 000.00 ($750.00 x 36 months) plus 10% according to the rental agreement, which is $29,700.00. The total rent lost by these renters is $102,058.00. But Watt et. al. (Exhibit 87#) wants an extra $35,000.00 from our
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
insurance carrier and Shimabukuro et. al (Exhibit 88#) wants an extra $25,000.00 from our insurance carrier. Why? This is insurance fraud. The renters want to live in the rental units for free, Shimabukuro is not even on the rental agreement, destroy the rental units, sublet the rental units and want money from my insurance company. Why are the renter asking for insurance money when they never signed the complaint, the Complaint does not have a sworn statement required by law and never attended court once. Is any part of this legal by law? Attorney Campbell signed the Complaint without a sworn statement, bribe the Judge and made a deal with the renters. Each year the Court et. al. get greedier and greedier. If anyone should be a Vexatious Litigant, it should be Attorney Campbell. She never files a counter suit, then files a separate cases that have no merit for money.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
For proof, Attorney Campbell signs her clients Complaint and never uses the sworn statement under the penalty of perjury rather she signs it Respectfully Submitted which violates the law under CCP 446. According to Luckett & Luckett v. Panos the Courts et. al. are guilty of being a Vexatious Litigant towards Jose Castenada and James Blume. A prefiling order may be lifted, modified, or removed on an application by the vexatious litigant (Luckett, 161 Cal. App. 4th at 8081). Blume and Castenada do not meet the criteria of a Vexatious Litigant as discussed throughout this court document. The Courts are abusing their power to steal property from the dead, the mother of Castenada and Blume. Castenada and Blume are branded by the Courts to Completely Silence them and take them out of commission from stopping the Courts of California of Judicial Facilitation and stealing from the dead. It is a big business, a money maker for the courts et. al. When the Courts caught or accused the guilty party is not disbarred, but disbursed and move from that Courthouse to another Courthouse in California. The Courts et. al. are rewarded for their criminal acts. For proof, when Attorney
27 28
Catherine Grant Wieder was caught with fraud in LASC & OCSC in Court Case BD317479#, using
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
OCSC & OC D.A. as an Appellate Court for a ruling of increase of Child Support that was never made by any Court (Exhibit 38, 39, 40 & 41#), she was rewarded and continued to practice law in Scott Bar, Downey & Long Beach, California. She got a fake address with a P.O. Box 14 in Scott Bar, Northern California, so she would not get served. The Luckett court duly noted that "fundamental fairness requires the 'vexatious litigant' brand be erasable in appropriate circumstances." (161 Cal. App. 4th at 82.) The court then provided a road map for future cases. "[E]rasure requires substantial evidence that the vexatious litigant has mended 'his ways or conduct' " (161 Cal. App. 4th at 83), which requires the applicant to establish the following: (1) that he or she has a propensity for honesty, including an accurate reckoning with the facts on which the prior finding was made and a notification of any change in financial condition; The key word is propensity for honesty. Castaneda and Blume are and were honest. It is the Courts et. al. that are dishonest. When the Court et. al. allow fake court cases to be filed with no Sworn Statement & the Plaintiff's signatures are not on the Complaint this is dishonest. When Castaneda and Blume are made Vexatious Litigants and do not meet the criteria, but the Vexatious Litigant is used as brand to Silence Pro Per Litigants for Judicial Bullying & Judicial Retaliation to violate their Due Process & Procedural Law not to be heard by the Courts of California, this is dishonest. When money is being stolen by the Courts et. al. and there is a pattern of this act & behavior, this is dishonest. When the same criminal acts continue year after year with LAHD that has no jurisdiction, Judge after Judge and the same renters with felony records that refuse to pay rent are rewarded & bribe Judges and allowed to remain and destroy the rentals, claim they want a settlement and we do not agree, now can collect from money from our insurance company (Farmers) who failed to represent Blume et. al. or the Estate of Mine M. Blume. This is insurance fraud. The Courts et. al. are demanding more money for their greed.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(2) that he or she has some genuine remorse for the costs of litigation inflicted on the defendants; Castaneda and Blume have no remorse. They did nothing wrong, but fight for justice and trying to stop the Courts et. al. from stealing their mother's home. Their actions make sense in a Court of Law with Justice. The Courts et. al. show no remorse for stealing from the dead, violation of Due Process and Procedural Law and Criminal Acts of Judicial Bullying, Judicial Fraud, Judicial Retaliation, Judicial Conspiracy, Judicial Terrorism, Judicial Facilitation and Judicial R.I.C.O. Castaneda lost his home illegally. The attorneys that represented him and his mother did not represent them. His mother court case never made it to Probate Court because everything was stolen before the Court Case made it to Probate Court. Where is the Court's remorse for their illegal
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
acts?The Court's actions violate Castaneda's and Blume's 8th Amendment Rights with Cruel and Unusual Pinishment. With Blume, it is the same vicious cycle that continues year after year & Judge after Judge leaving the Estate of Mine M. Blume poor and without funds. Now the Courts et. al. are now stealing from our insurance companies. This is insurance fraud. The Courts et. al., Watt et. al & Shimabukuro et. al. (Exhibit 17, 86, 87 & 88#) believe they can make a Settlement without Blume et. al signatures. This is illegal. All parties have to agree and sign a contract to make a Settlement. The Courts et. al. know Blume et. al. will refuse to sign any agreement with Watt et. al & Shimabukuro et. al. The criminal acts continue to get out more criminal acts by the Courts et. al.
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 60 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

Castaneda and Blume Castaneda and Blume Castaneda and Blume Castaneda and Blume (3) that he or she has made some genuine effort at restitution to the previous victims; Castaneda and Blume et. al. are the victims and are demanding restitution from the Courts et. al., Watt et. al & Shimabukuro et. al. The Courts et. al., Watt et. al & Shimabukuro et. al. (Exhibit
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
17, 86, 87 & 88#) believe they can make a Settlement without Blume et. al signatures. This is illegal. All parties have to agree and sign a contract to make a Settlement. The Courts et. al. know Blume et. al. will refuse to sign any agreement with Watt et. al & Shimabukuro et. al. The criminal acts continue to get out more criminal acts by the Courts et. al. and (4) that he or she actually has given up the habit of suing people as a way of life, including making "efforts at obtaining gainful employment." (161 Cal. App. 4th at 9394.) This does not apply to Castaneda and Blume et. al. Blume et. al. is disabled. It is illegal to work when you are disabled and Blume et. al cannot work because of disabilities. Castaneda lost everything, his home, car and money from inheritance. Castaneda is employed and has been for over 10 years. Watt et. al. & Shimabukuro et. al. need to payments of back rent to the Estate of Mine M. Blume aproximately $102,000.00 and not to commit insurance fraud. They have stolen enough from the Estate of Mine M. Blume with the assistance of the Courts et. al.
10. PENAL CODE 837, A PRIVATE PERSON'S ARRESTS FOR CRIMINAL ACTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. The Attitude of the Court is a common pattern, blatantly apparent and violates the Rights of Pro Per Litigants with Judicial Facilitation, Judicial Conspiracy and Judicial R.I.C.O.
Blume et. al. experiences and sees more illegal and criminal acts in the Courthouses of California then what occurs in the news on television, the newspapers and the streets put together. The Court literally has a hate crime attitude (discussed earlier in this Court Document) against the poor, colored, disabled, etc. (Exhibit 3#) . It is discussed earlier in this Court Document that Pro Per litigants must perform as attorneys. Not only is this written in Exhibit 15#, but it is said in court by Judges to Blume et. al. It is proven but the very evidence Judge Hess uses to make James Blume a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Vexatious Litigant (Exhibit 34#). The list of 11 Court Cases dealing with renters who refuse to pay rent (Exhibits 70, 71 & 72#), destroy the rental unit, sublet the rental unit and then file a Complaint that the renters and their attorney lie and commit fraud in the Complaint. According to FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8 (c ) (f) and (e) Constructing Pleadings: Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice or as substantial justice. for Blume et. al. Now after commit criminal acts they want money from our insurance company. They are the renters from Hell. Shimabukuro is not even on the rental agreement. For immediate relief Blume et. al. is demanding eviction for Watt et. al. and Shimabukuro et. al.
The court case BC470365# begins with a Complaint not signed by Watt & Garcia, but signed by Attorney Campbell (Exhibit 90#). Why? Does Attorney Campbell have Power of Attorney over Watt & Garcia that they cannot sign their own Complaint? By Law, doesn't the Complaint have to be signed by the Plaintiffs? Every Complaint I have read has been signed by the Plaintiffs and not the attorney, unless there was a Power of Attorney. This happens again in Court Case BC485710#. The Complaint is not signed by Shimabukuro & Aoki, but signed by Attorney Campbell (Exhibit 91#). Why? Does Attorney Campbell have Power of Attorney over Watt & Garcia that they cannot sign their own Complaint? By Law, doesn't the Complaint have to be signed by the Plaintiffs? Every Complaint I have read has been signed by the Plaintiffs and not the attorney, unless there was a Power of Attorney. Both Court Cases BC470365# (Watt & Garcia) & BC485710# (Shimabukuro & Aoki) are signed under Respectfully Submitted by Attorney Campbell and not a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury. By Law, doesn't the Complaint must have the sworn statement under the penalty of perjury. Every time I submit court documents I must have the sworn statement under the penalty of perjury with my signature or the Court Clerks refuse to Court Stamp & accept my Court Documents. Why do the Court Clerks allow court documents in Court without a sworn statement by Attorney Campbell? By Law, is it legal to submit Court Documents without a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury? If it legal to submit Court Documents or Complaint without a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury does this make these court documents illegal and a criminal act to fraud the courts? Or does it mean this is a fake Court
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case and will end in a Settlement to save our criminal and illegal acts of Judicial Facilitation where parties agree or disagree? Also does it mean that since there is no sworn statement, Watt et. al and Shimabukuro et. al. did not sign the Complaint and never attended Court once that Watt et. al, Shimabukuro et. al. and Attorney Campbell are not responsible for any of their actions, even fraud upon the Courts? Are the litigants in Pro Per held to a higher standard than attorneys?
The Courts and LAHD who has no jurisdiction over the Estate of Mine M. Blume because it is a 3 unit rental on one parcel of land according commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code is 7060. (a) No public entity, as defined in Section 811.2. To see their actions or lack of actions for years when the same Court trial comes up year after year, Judge after Judge and Court Case after Court Case. The same with LAHD (Exhibit 93#). It becomes a Pay to Play scenario for the courts and time to violate the Rights of the litigants in Pro Per by not giving Pro Per litigants access to the court and not to heard. James Blume manages the Estate of Mine M. Blume (Exhibit 92#, page 4 of 4), but of the criminal acts of the renters, the Estate of Mine M. Blume had to hire property management, Playa Vista Property Management Inc. Mary Ann Blume/Rodriguez is the Administrator of the Estate of Mine M. Blume (Exhibit 47#)
The 11 Court Cases does not meet the criteria of James Blume as a Vexatious Litigant, but show that James Blume had a series of this common pattern that Judges that refuse to hear him, refused to give him a Jury Trial, dismissed the court case without a trial. For proof, Blume v. JP Morgan Chase verifies the court's attitude towards the poor, colored, disabled etc. It states in Exhibit 62# the exact format of the Court's common pattern. Per Court, motion for mistrial is rejected. No trial was held; case was dismissed 08/15/2013. Per Court, motion for mistrial is rejected means you have no right to any type of Justice, even though criminal acts are being performed and the courts do not care about the illegal conduct of the Courts and Officers of the Court. No Trial was held means we refuse to hear or listen to anything you are saying and you are not worth any type of Justice and the Courts would be accountable for their criminal actions and behavior. Case was dismissed what the courts are saying we can perform illegal, criminal acts, however you are held to a higher standard than an attorney and you have no right to seek Justice. For proof, in Exhibit 2#, page 1#, 4th line, Judge Buckley states The first document seeks to have at least nine judicial officers of the Los Angeles County Superior Court arrested, among many other requests for their eviction and the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
production of their electronic court transcripts. (This same request has been requested also in Blume v. JP Morgan Chase Court Case 30-2012-00566104# to 2 police departments Anaheim and Santa Ana Police Department in a Court Document titled File Upon Demand OSC JPMorgan Chase Conspires to Steal Homes with the Court Court Stamped dated June 26, 2013.) When teachers, policemen, doctors and military servicemen are put on report with a police arrest, they can no longer practice their professional trade and are suspended, but not our Judges that perform criminal acts. The Courts et. al. lie so much they cannot tell the truth from a lie. When we request our relief, the Court et. al. document our efforts for relief to be heard in Court Records and then mock We the People. If we are heard We the People are mocked, otherwise We the People are ignored, made a Vexatious Litigant with no merit and our court documents are destroyed.
Judge Buckley sums the entire 11 court cases in Exhibit 2#, (first paragraph, last sentence) in one sentence by saying ...James Blume, aka Jose Castaneda. This Supervising Judge does not know what he is talking about. Because Supervising Judge Buckley is making 2 people one person, he has combined both Jose Castaneda's with James Blume's Vexatious Litigant Court Case. Because in James Blume's Vexatious Litigant Court Case there are only 11 court cases listed (Exhibit 34#, page 6 of 9). However Supervising Judge Buckley states Their face pages list at least twenty case numbers, one of which BC485710 corresponds to an action that was settled by Mr. Blume on September 18, 2013, Supervising Judge Buckley facts are all wrong. There are only ll court cases listed in James Blume Vexatious Litigant Case. BC485710# was not settled, if so were is the contract with his signature on it? It does not exist. In Exhibit 3#, a Court Form MC-410 dated 09/16/2013 requesting in item 5# Type or types of accommodation requested (specify): CONTINUATION ON JURY TRIAL AND REQUESTING ASSISTANCE. This MC-410 was CANCELED by the Courts. James Blume is not my attorney, did not agree to the Settlement and cannot speak for Mary Ann Blume. The key point is that access to a copy of or the transcripts of the Electronic Recording Monitor for each court case would hold the Courts accountable. For 2 simple evictions to take 6 years, 11 court cases and go beyond Superior Court to seek relief is a violation of Blume et. al. of 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 14th Amendment Rights.
For 2 simple evictions to take 6 years, 11 court cases and go beyond Superior Court to seek relief also conveys a bigger Court Scandal & Court Scam, stealing homes by the Courts by Judicial
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Conspiracy, Judicial Facilitation, Judicial Fraud and Judicial R.I.C.O. Also for 2 simple evictions to take 6 years, 11 court cases and go beyond Superior Court to seek relief proves Judicial Retaliation, Judicial Entrapment, Judicial Bribery and Judicial Greed. The Courts have continuously attacked the Probate Property of the Estate of Mine M. Blume. For proof, Exhibits 21, 22, 23, 38, 39 & 40# Res Adujudicata/Collateral Estoppel begins in 08/20/2001 with Court Case BD317479# & 02FL000867#. This is the beginning of Judicial Retaliation, Judicial Entrapment, Judicial Bribery and Judicial Greed and has progress and developed into Judicial Conspiracy, Judicial Facilitation, Judicial Fraud and Judicial R.I.C.O with any affiliation with James Blume. For proof in Exhibit 2#, page 1, paragraph 1, last sentence, Judge Buckley seals this thought or concept and places it into fact by stating Both the order to show cause and the MC-701 forms and pleading were filed by James Blume, aka Jose Castaneda. The Courts sees Plaintiffs in other court cases just like James Blume, aka Jose Castaneda as affiliation with James Blume as one person. How can Judge Buckley that makes 2 people James Blume, aka Jose Castaneda one person able to make a sound Judgment?
Judge Hess refuses to rule on a simple eviction in Default for 3 years. Continues to refuse to rule on Court Case and even asked Blume et. al. earlier in the Court Case to drop Court Case BC453664#. T A resubmit court document (Exhibit 13#) and an Amended Complaint dated 05/19/2011 that the Court Clerk refused court stamp the Document therefore the document had to be mailed. This resubmitted court document and Amended Complaint dated 05/23/2011 (Exhibit 13#). No where on the resubmitted court document that it states that it is an Amended Complaint. However this Amended Complaint is in Default. Judge Hess ignores his Fiduciary Duties and refuses to rule on this eviction Default in court case BC453664# . So Judge Hess ignores the eviction default and makes James Blume a Vexatious Litigant court case in BC453664# , which is Judicial Entrapment and the Courts et. al. by placing a post security of $3,000.00 is Judicial Extortion. Judge Hess would rather commit a criminal act than rule on a simple eviction case in Default. This happened to Jose Castaneda in his court case BC466737# (Exhibit 63#). Jose Castaneda goes to Court to be heard because the Courts et. al. have stolen his mother's estate, etc. Instead the Courts et. al. made Jose Castaneda a Vexatious Litigant with his own court case, which is Judicial Entrapment and by the Courts et. al. by placing a post security for $50,000.00 is Judicial Extortion. By Law, is it legal for the Courts et. al. not to hear a filed court case and turn the very Pro Per Litigant into Vexatious
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Litigant Court Cases? Is this the new Court Scam to make everyone the Courts et. al. steal from to turn them into Vexatious Litigants illegally with no merit? This is a hate crime against the poor, disabled, colored, uneducated, etc.
It is requested in Exhibit 80# in Court Case BC464831# with the City Attorney (Breithaupt) to consolidate Court Case BC453664#, BC470365#, BC485710# and LAHD 2704072#, but this court case was not heard (Exhibit 60 & 61#). In Exhibit 77#, LAHD Appeal Hearing in LAHD 2704072# , item 12. PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT'S TO CONSOLIDATE. In Exhibit 79#, in Case No. BC 0453664/Related case BC 470365 MOTION AND PLEADING TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES BY LAW. How does a Vexatious Litigant ask several times for Consolidation of Court Cases and not get Court Case Consolidation? Would a true Vexatious Litigant even ask for any type of court case consolidation? To prove Blume et. al. has no access to the Courts and is not heard, not one case was consolidated. By Law, does one have to be an attorney to request and receive Court Case Consolidation? A Vexatious Litigant would not even ask for a Court Case Consolidation, yet James Blume does.
Also earlier in the Court Case, Judge Hess requested that Blume et. al. not to seek Consolidation of Court Cases BC453664# & BC 470365# (Exhibits 77, 78, 79 & 80#), but informed Plaintiffs to make the Court Cases related. Judge Hess even tells Plaintiffs what court forms to use to file the Court Cases as related. Blume et. al. refused so Attorney Campbell filled out the court forms to make the Court Cases related cases. This and several illegal actions by the court would be held accountable to prove what illegal conversations took place such as the related case and drop Court Case BC453664# and did not take place such as the Vexatious Litigant Trial on 05/15/2013. For more proof the Vexatious Litigant Trial on 05/15/2013 did not happen because in Exhibit 2#, page 1, paragraph 2, first sentence, Judge Buckley states Mr. Blume/Castenada was declared a vexatious litigant on May 18, 2012, in case BC466 737, under the name of Jose Castaneda. James Blume Vexatious Litigant Trial took place on 05/15/2013 in an eviction Court Case BC453664# and not on May 18, 2012 in Court Case BC466737#, which is Judicial Fraud. The Courts sees Plaintiffs in other court cases just like James Blume, aka Jose Castaneda as affiliation with James Blume as one person.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Judge Hess could not continue Court Case BC470365# without disposing of the Eviction Court Case BC453664#. By Law, the Eviction Court Case BC453664# that is in Default and all the other 11 court cases has to rule in favor of Plaintiff, James Blume. If Judge Hess ruled in favor of Plaintiff, James Blume, then the Court Case BC470365# & BC485710# would have no validity and could not continue. If any of the Judges from the other 11 court cases ruled in our favor, none of us would be here! As Judge Buckley states in Exhibit 2#, page 1, 3rd sentence, The second set of documents proposes civil litigation against many of the same judicial officers for intentional violations of rights, violation of due process, etc. Because the Courts refused to rule on the Eviction Court Case BC453664# and Plaintiffs refuse to drops Court Case BC453664#, the Courts made Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant therefore an intentional violation of rights and violation of due process. Not only are Plaintiffs not heard or have no access to the courts, not given a trial or Jury Trial, but Judge Buckley mocks Plaintiff cries for Civil Rights and Violation of Due Process per the Constitution of United States.
Judge Hess (Exhibit 34#), Judge Buckley (Exhibit 2, 49, 50 & 51#) and Administrative Presiding
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Judge Boren (Exhibit 54#) file court documents that do not have notification to attend the hearing, therefore there will be NO APPEARANCES which violates the Brown Act. When there are NO APPEARANCES on either side, Plaintiff or Defendant, then the charges are dropped, Judges can no longer proceed with the court case.
Judge Buckley (Exhibit 2#) there is no reference to a court case number, his facts are wrong and makes James Blume aka Jose Castaneda one person which demonstrates extreme Judicial Discrimination and Judicial Prejudice claiming ...two pre-filing orders issued against him. that James Blume now has both James Blume and Jose Castaneda Vexatious Litigant Orders issue against him. What makes this so hostile is James Blume and Jose Castaneda together on fee waivers could not pay just James Blume's post security court fee of $3,000. What makes the court think that James Blume can pay Jose Castaneda post security court fee of $50,000. This tells you how much the courts stole from Jose Castaneda and the criminal actions of the court. Judge Buckley (Exhibit 49, 50 & 51#) none of his Proof of Services are certified or verified by Armando Garcia, there is no court number or the court number is different from the court case and states Nothing in these documents plainly conveys to this court what exactly Mr. Blume is seeking in the way of judicial relief.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Accordingly, the court is unable to act on Mr. Blume's filing. If James Blume was notified of the court hearing, he could tell Judge Buckley. Common Sense would tell Judge Buckley that James Blume does not fit the criteria of being a Vexatiously Litigant after receiving all the information to vacated and removal of the title Vexatious Litigant in Exhibit 2#, page 2 & 3 that is what he wanted. It is apparent that common sense is no longer common. Furthermore this is a Judgment from a Judge that cannot tell one person from another, claims Blume & Castaneda are the same person, did not follow Due Process and Procedural Law by not sending his Judgment with a certified or verified Proof of Service (Exhibit 49, 50 & 51#) & no notification to attend a court trial and states the very law he breaks in Luckett v. Panos. We the People have to trust this Judge to perform Justice.
Administrative Presiding Judge Boren (Exhibit 54#) file court documents that do not have notification to attend the hearing, therefore there will be NO APPEARANCES which violates the Brown Act, Due Process and Procedural Law. When there are NO APPEARANCES on either side, Plaintiff or Defendant, then the charges are dropped, Judges can no longer proceed with the court case. This violates our Constitutional Rights. Administrative Presiding Judge Boren (Exhibit 54#) drops Plaintiff's Appeal Court Case B253340# illegally and lists Super. Ct. No. BC453664# & BC470365# underneath the court case. BC453664# the Eviction Court Case that is in Default that
is being used as a Vexatious Litigant Court Case and proves that BC453664# & BC470365# are consolidated cases.
Judge Hess (Exhibit 34#), Judge Buckley (Exhibit 2, 49, 50 & 51#) and Administrative Presiding Judge Boren (Exhibit 54#) interferes with the Justice of Law, Procedural Law and Due Process. When 3 Judges thinks that their ruling should stop Justice it becomes a criminal because Vexatious Litigant is Not Permanent. Even if a plaintiff has been declared vexatious and a prefiling order is in place, there is no absolute prohibition against filing new lawsuits. If it appears that a new case has merit and has not been filed for purposes of harassment or delay, the presiding judge must permit the case to proceed ( 391.7(b)). As the courts have noted, "[w]hen a vexatious litigant knocks on the courthouse door with a colorable claim, he may enter." (Luckett v. Panos, 161 Cal. App. 4Th 77, 81 (2008).) In Exhibit 2# page 2, Judge Buckley states Luckett v. Panos, but fails to mention and leaves out this part of the law that applies to Blume et. al. Judge Boren, Buckley & Hess must stop this court case to make sure Court Corruption continues and remains in their Court. The
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Courts et. al. continuously commits criminal acts one after the other to cover from one criminal to another for a predictive and purchased decision. Blume et. al. is again requesting Criminal Arrest PENAL CODE 837, A PRIVATE PERSON'S ARRESTS FOR CRIMINAL ACTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. Los Angeles County (LASC): Judge Dodson, Judge Kristovich, Judge Boas Goodson, Judge Dunn, City Attorney Breithaupt, Judge Ongkeko, Judge McKay, Judge Levine, Judge Hess, Judge Hiroshige, Supervising Judge Buckley, Presiding Judge Boren and all the Judges in all the Exhibits and this court document. Blume et. al. is asking the Courts to review each court case by merit by the FBI, The Inspector General's Office, L.A. City Attorney's Office, L.A. County District Attorney's Office (Judicial Integrity Division), and U.S. Attorney's Office. LAPD Internal Affairs Division (Chief Beck) to finish their investigation on the fraud, criminal acts and to get stolen money missing and divided by all parties mentioned above. For these agencies to use California Code of Civil Procedure Section 475: states The court must, in every stage of an action, disregard any error,
improper ruling, instruction, or defect, in the pleadings or proceedings which, in the opinion of said court, does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. No judgment, decision, or decree shall be reversed or affected by reason of any error, ruling, instruction, or defect, ... and FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 8 (c ) (f) and (e) Constructing Pleadings: Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice or as substantial justice in each court case as a guide. According to CCP Code 338(d): An Action for Relief on the grounds of Fraud or Mistake. The cause of action in that case is not deemed to have accrued limited Discovery by the aggrieved party or the facts constituting the Fraud or Mistake. Also 28 U.S.C. 455, There is No time constraint with Fraud Upon the Courts.
11.
IMMEDIATE RELIEF OF ACTIONS:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Requesting a Filer's Bill of Rights (F.B.R.). The People want a Filer's Bill of Rights designed with a checklist (form) so Courts cannot tamper with our evidence and allow the Courts in California to stop the Selling of Decisions from the Bench to receive a Judicial Bribe! This Filer's Bill of Rights is designed with a checklist (form) so the Courts cannot tamper with the evidence, force Judges to rule, justification for the Judge's Ruling, and accountability after each Court Appearance what was construed for Justice. This checklist would immediately stop a Judicial Scams & Judicial Shams. When a violation in the checklist occurs, The People can contact an agency, Supervising Agency over the Courts to cease criminal activities in Court immediately. The error would be fixed immediately and the court case can continue with another Judge. The new Judge can review the
11 12 13 14 15 16
Complaint with the Filer's Bill of Rights form/checklist and begin where the case left off or stopped. If a Judge is constantly taken to the Supervising Agency, it will note the Corruption of this Judge. 2. Immediate eviction of 1242 N. Alexandria Avenue Watt et. al., and 1242 N. Alexandria Avenue Aoki et. al. 3. Watt & Garcia owes the Estate of Mine M. Blume $65,780.00 (1,495.00 x 44 months) plus 10%
17 18 19 20 21 22
according to the rental agreement in which she lied and did not tell the truth. At this present time Watt & Garcia owes the Estate of Mine M. Blume $72,358.00 and needs to pay back rent immediately plus the physical damages by vandalism to the rental unit. 4. Aoki and Shimabukuro owes $ 27, 000.00 ($750.00 x 36 months) plus 10% according to the rental agreement, which is $29,700.00 and needs to pay back rent immediately plus physical damages by

vandalism to the rental unit. 5. There is no court Settlement with or agreement to Settle with Watt & Garcia's Court Case BC470365# (Exhibit 87#) and a refusal to pay $35,000.00 from our insurance carrier.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
6. There is no court Settlement with or agreement to Settle with Shimabukuro & Aoki's Court Case BC485710# (Exhibit 88#) and a refusal to pay $25,000.00 from our insurance carrier. 7. In Court Cases BC470365# (Watt & Garcia) & BC485710# (Shimabukuro & Aoki) requested damages of $100,000.00. Since both Court Cases are being dropped/dismissed the Estate of Mine M. Blume because of fraud and no merit, the Estate of Mine M. Blume is requesting $100,000.00 for damages to the property and committing fraud. 8. Watt et. al. & Aoki et. al. to pay all attorney's fees and Court Costs. 9. Blume et. al. is again requesting Criminal Arrest PENAL CODE 837, A PRIVATE PERSON'S ARRESTS FOR CRIMINAL ACTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF
11 12 13 14 15 16
UNITED STATES. Los Angeles County (LASC): Judge Dodson, Judge Kristovich, Judge Boas Goodson, Judge Dunn, City Attorney Breithaupt, Judge Ongkeko, Judge McKay, Judge Levine, Judge Hess, Judge Hiroshige, Supervising Judge Buckley, Presiding Judge Boren and all the Judges in all the Exhibits and this court document. Blume et. al. is asking the Courts to review each court case by merit by the
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 71 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

FBI, The Inspector General's Office, L.A. City Attorney's Office, L.A. County District Attorney's Office (Judicial Integrity Division), and U.S. Attorney's Office. LAPD Internal Affairs Division (Chief Beck) to finish their investigation on the fraud, criminal acts and to get stolen money missing and divided by all parties mentioned above AND INCLUDING LAHD. For these agencies to use California Code of Civil Procedure Section 475: states The court must, in every stage of an
action, disregard any error, improper ruling, instruction, or defect, in the pleadings or proceedings which, in the opinion of said court, does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. No judgment, decision, or decree shall be reversed or affected by reason of any error, ruling, instruction, or defect, ... and
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8 (c ) (f) and (e) Constructing Pleadings:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice or as substantial justice in each court case as a guide. According to CCP Code 338(d): An Action for Relief on the grounds of Fraud or Mistake. The cause of action in that case is not deemed to have accrued limited Discovery by the aggrieved party or the facts constituting the Fraud or Mistake. Also 28 U.S.C. 455, There is No time constraint with Fraud Upon the Courts. Also to have the findings by all agencies in writing. 10. For the Courts to answer and address all questions in this court document in writing.
I declare under the Penalty of Perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. (ALL COPIES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ORIGINALS)
_____________________________ James Blume USMC Honorable
_____MARCH 18, 2014____ Date
_____________________________ Mary Ann Blume
_____MARCH 18, 2014____ Date
_____________________________ Jose Castaneda
_____MARCH 18, 2014____ Date

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 73 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS


Motion To Quash Corrupt Settlement by Judge Robert Leslie Hess - Hess 03-20-14 Corruption at Stanley Mosk Court Where Judges Sell Their Decisions For A Purchase and Predictive Verdict!

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Quash Corrupt Settlement by Judge Robert Leslie Hess - Hess 03-20-14 Corruption at Stanley Mosk Court Where Judges Sell Their Decisions For A Purchase and Predictive Verdict!

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(Respondents Stealing Mail) (Allowed by the Courts)

FILE UPON DEMAND PER THE CONSTITUTION

- 4 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 6 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

B. FORUM SHOPPING FOR VEXATIOUS LITIGANT JUDGE, JUDGE HESS:

28 - 8 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

23 24 25 26 27 28 - 9 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 11 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

1. TO STEAL FROM THE DEAD:

1.(A) THIS PATTERN OF STEALING FROM THE DEAD CONTINUES:

2. Res Adujudicata/Collateral Estoppel begins in Court Case BD317479# & 02FL000867#:

- 22 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

NOT HAVING ACCESS TO THE COURTS SCAM (Exhibits 1 to 89#),

ADDRESS SCAM (Exhibit 64# and Exhibits 1 to 89#)

AMEND SCAM: (Exhibits 31, 33 & 62#)

BAIT & SWITCH SCAM: (Exhibits 13 & 62#)

MANUFACTURING AND MANIPULATING EVIDENCE SCAM:

See Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.

In BC453664# (Exhibits 12 &13#) & BC470365# (Exhibit 10 & 11#): It is a request on

(08U016492#), case 2 (10U02548#), & case 10 (08M12480#).

7. FAKE COURT CASES BC470365# ET. AL.:

8. VEXATIOUS LITIGANT SCAM & 4 PART TEST (Established in DeLong).

- 47 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

- 51 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 60 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

IMMEDIATE RELIEF OF ACTIONS:

23 24 25 26 27 28 - 70 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 71 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8 (c ) (f) and (e) Constructing Pleadings:

_____________________________ James Blume USMC Honorable

_____MARCH 18, 2014____ Date

_____________________________ Mary Ann Blume

_____MARCH 18, 2014____ Date

_____________________________ Jose Castaneda

_____MARCH 18, 2014____ Date

- 72 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 73 of 72- TOTAL PAGES W/93 EXHIBITS

You might also like

_MARCH 18, 2014 Date

_MARCH 18, 2014 Date

_MARCH 18, 2014 Date