Judges, from the left: Richard Paez, Carlos T. Bea, Mary Murguia
As a legal researcher, I have reviewed countless legal cases filed in the U.S. for the past 14 years. These include unpublished appellate decisions in both state and federal courts. I discovered that there are 3 fatal loopholes in the legal system.
The first loophole is, unless you are a party to a legal case or pay fees to access a case, there are no avenues to scrutinize whether the unpublished decisions signed by judicial officers are results of negligence or legal malpractices because some unpublished decisions show nothing more than 1 or 2 pages or 1 or 2 lines of statements without citing any relevant cases to support the decisions or because judges may insert false information that is not docketed.
If the decisions including appellate decisions do not include the statements of the cases, it is a negative sign that neither a clerk nor a judge has read the cases.
It is also convenient to not mention any information that is likely contrary to their conclusions. This is like a situation where cheating spouses do not mention anything about what they did overnight to avoid information leaks that will lead them to confess their wrongdoings or that will reveal their illogical or impossible statements or actions, or where criminals do not mention anything about what they did at the crime scenes in order not to jeopardize their positions. If you have not read a book, you have nothing to say about the book. Likewise, when judges have not read docketed pleadings such as briefs, they have nothing to say about the case other than affirmation of the lower courts’ decisions.
You can easily tell who likely wrote an order by the tone of voice and the style of writing. 1 or 2 lines of denial orders are written by clerks. Neither clerks nor judges seem to have read docketed pleadings in some unpublished cases. Cases are predetermined by the identities of the parties even before their briefs are submitted.
One of the best examples is the decision signed in 2018 by Richard Paez, Carlos Bea, and Mary Murguia, the 9th Circuit judges. Their unpublished opinion, which does not include the statement of the case, is written in 1.5 page and is distant from the appellant’s case filed against Mona Shah and Paula Kulhman who had misunderstood their patients’ names that were continuously misunderstood by their lawyers which was the ground for the lawsuit as a result. This is a sign of legal abuse against litigants who wait many years (in some cases, they wait longer than 4 years from the time of filing a complaint – which was this case) to hear an opinion.
This is a case involving a theory of Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy (MSBP) that was abused in order to modify child custody through a minor’s counsel, social workers, healthcare providers and the loopholes of the legal system. The following case is related to this case and it should have required disqualification of a judge because the judge intentionally distorted this case.
A former appellate judge in the division 5, the second district of California, Paul Turner wrote, “After reviewing voluminous medical records and testimony” while those records are personal injury pleadings misplaced by a dependency court, according to the transcript. Paul Turner illogically implies that there are many ‘medical records’ transferred from a personal ‘injury’ case, so the child must ‘not’ be suffering from an ‘illness’. Most petitions for certiorari are automatically denied by the Supreme Court not because lower courts’ decisions have no errors but because the decisions are predetermined if the defendants are government entities.
Ironically, Turner died of cancer at his age 65 in 2017 only a few years after he had said above affirming a trial court commissioner, Stephen Marpet’s order to remove the child from the parent by the theory of Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy while the child has likely suffered from an undiagnosed fungal infection, a precursor of cancer according to Dr. Simoncini's "Cancer is fungus".
According to the transcript, Marpet stated, “Three of the volumes of the seven volumes from the family law order (commissioner, Patricia Ito's order) still here if anybody wishes to see them”. In the case where a negligent judge violates jurisdiction over a case that had been fully adjudicated through a costly trial, you can immediately assume that the judge may have a connection with a party to the action or takes advantages from the party. If your defendants are government entities that pay the commissioners’ salaries, you can easily predict the negative outcome of your cases.
A minor’s counsel, Kenneth P. Sherman has worked at Marpet’s court and Patricia Ito’s court both. According to the transcripts in both courts that I reviewed, Sherman told a lie to a commissioner, Ito, “She doesn’t really have a best friend. She doesn’t really have play dates.” while the child’s teacher stated, “She does have a lot of friends. The kids miss her like crazy.” Sherman received $11,000 from the child’s father according to his bills filed with Ito’s court at the time when he helped the father by telling a lie to Ito’s court. Kenneth P. Sherman still practices his license, Ito has been removed from the bench, Paul Turner died and Stephen Marpet is still on the bench.
The second loophole is that minor’s counsels are allowed to contact healthcare providers, which was possible by Ito’s order in the above case according to the transcript. Minor’s counsels may falsely accuse parents of Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy by delivering their malicious opinions to children’s healthcare providers if they face a motion for disqualification by the parents, which is likely the above case since the mother really had filed a motion against Sherman prior to his action.
Most victims are mothers. See Rafaelina Duval v. County of Los Angeles et al. Case No. BC470714 (Cal. Super. Nov. 3, 2016) awarding the mother $3.1 million because social workers warrantlessly seized Duval’s baby using a false theory of MSBP.
Mona Shah, Paula Kuhlman, and their lawyers switched the names of the child (their patient) and the parent according to their medical records. The preclusion doctrine is never possible when the parties’ names have never been corrected in any courts including Carla Woehrle’s court where Rooker-Feldman doctrine (estoppel defense) was impossible but was accepted only to dismiss the case because the majority of the defendants were government entities. It is like an assertion that if the earth was recorded as a square-shaped planet in a dictionary, no further discussion or correction is necessary. Mona Shah and Paula Kuhlman are still wearing white coats thanks to the loopholes in the legal system.
Unless these legal loopholes are patched, more litigants will be abused by more judicial officers. And more defendants like Mona Shah and Paula Kuhlman will walk out of the courthouse without being penalized for their wrongful acts. They caused the child to be permanently removed from the parent and caused the child and the parent to permanently lose their access to proper medical treatments.
Litigants spend 1-3 years to receive a legal opinion through extremely expensive appeals. Litigants are forced to wait additional 3-5 years when unethical parties or unethical judicial officers maliciously delay the cases violating the discovery rules. The cost from a trial to an appeal can be higher than $500,000. See Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick’s case against County of Orange.
Carla Woehrle, who was the district court magistrate judge, delayed without good cause, for a year, her decision about the above plaintiff’s motions for default judgement only to wait until an effective order expires and she docketed, under the plaintiff, a pleading that was not filed by the plaintiff, according to the case summary and the disqualification motion filed by the plaintiff. Woehrle and Ito appear to have been removed from the bench since 2016. However, Woehrle’s supervising judge, who decided the subject case, Christina A. Snyder is still on the bench. This is the judge Snyder who struck a bicyclist with her car on June 29, 2000.
The third loophole is that even if pro se legal arguments had been supported by the most compelling case law and the statutes and your opposing counsel’s arguments had failed fatally, your chance to get your pleadings reviewed by a judge is rare unless your arguments had been submitted by a lawyer no matter what the lawyer had written.
Even if you were a prevailing party in your self-represented case (pro se) and you chose to self-represent again because all your lawyers have failed you, you are not allowed to add your opportunity cost to your legal expenses. Your opportunity cost can be higher than the attorney’s fees if your income was higher than lawyer’s fees and if you sacrificed your career to self-present your case.
However, the legal system in the U.S. is designed to protect the financial interests of lawyers whose career heads for the bench who will grant or deny legal fees. This legal system is distant from the banking system that allows accrued interests (opportunity cost) to be awarded to creditors against debtors until debts are paid off. This situation is like a wife’s opportunity cost for her time to cook, clean, homeschool, babysit, and nurse, is not calculated as a potential income that she could have earned if she had spent the equal amount of time to provide the same services for another household.
In 2015, federal district judges were paid $201,100 a year, circuit judges were paid $213,300 from the tax that you pay for the judicial services that they promised the presidents (who voted for presidents?) who appointed the justices.
However, the voice that you raise by filing lawsuits cannot be heard unless 3 legal loopholes, in the cases involving children, are systemically repaired, which may be impossible because lawyers are the future judges and judges are the former lawyers who will never act against their own past, present, and future interests. Therefore, all non-lawyers are the past, present and future victims of the present legal system.
A question is who is superseding the negligent conduct or the poor judicial performance of Paez, Bea, and Murguia when only 80 of 10,000 petitions for certiorari (0.8%), are heard (not granted) in each year by the U.S. Supreme Court? This is not only a bad luck that brought negligent, unethical, or incompetent judges or clerks to the case but also a chronical and fatal failure of the U.S. judicial system.
No comments:
Post a Comment