Return
Home
Rep
Karen Bass re Hyundai
Opposition
to Sale of Property
What's
New
Corrupt
Los Angeles Rent Control
City
LA Civil Rights Lawsuit re Hi Point Apts
Racism
in America
Inside
the Law Firm
California
EDD Corruption
 
 

LA County Superior Court Official

Says Clerks Not Doing Their Job


LACourtCorruption

Thursday, December 17, 2020

Gregory C. Drapac
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel Clerk of Court
Superior Court of California
111 N Hill Street
Los Angeles CA 90012

Falsification of the record by the court
Court says complaints do not have to be signed

Via Facsimile/US Mail

Re: Your letter dated December 3, 2020 re my faxes 10/27/20, 10/30/20, and 11/05/20

Your letter is not acceptable as a resolution. I address the issue that in court case small claims 19STSC14394 the court docket prepared by the court says that cross complaints were filed against me by defendants Power Property Group, Hi Point Apts LLC, Walter Barratt, Brett Parsons, Kasandra Harris, and Cynthia Reynosa. My concern is the accuracy and integrity of the court prepared online summary which indicated only one cross complaint had been filed, and from my reading of a copy of the complaint, the complaint was only signed by two of the defendants, and no signed cross complaint filed by four of the defendants.

Prior to speaking with court employee Sandy Pigato-Pizazo (see 11/5/20 fax with attachment), I had called the small claims court and asked about the procedure when there are multiple defendants or plaintiffs. I was told by the clerk that each individual has to sign their own name on the complaint and he pointed out by phone where each party has to sign.

So when I talked with Sandy on 11/5/20, she took the opposite approach to what I had been told by the previous county employee. Thus that prompted my fax of 11/5/20.

The cross complaint is signed repeatedly by Walter Barratt who I assume is trying to sign on behalf of the other defendants, however, that is not permitted because the court clerk has already said each party has to sign themselves. The cross complaint is handwritten so therefore it was probably not filed electronically. If the defendants submitted such documents, they would be liable under CCP section 128.7 for not signing under penalty of perjury, Barratt would be liable under CCP 128.7 and liable for making false signatures, and the court could be liable for acting in concert. Barratt had no authority to sign for the defendants, and as such he made false statements, also punishable under criminal law.

Nonetheless, my point is that I have brought this matter to the court’s attention, and the court refuses to make a correction to the record.

I would wonder how many complaints are accepted by the court and not signed by the parties. Please provide me with a copy of the court record for the last three years showing how many complaints the court accepted for filing (electronic filing exempted) where the clerk did not conduct a diligent effort to check the complaint to match the signature against the name of the party, and the court did not bring that non-compliance to the attention of the parties and the court record. I would also like to know in how many instances the court did require the signature to reasonably match the name of the party.

I maintain that if you do not have a signed cross complaint by four parties, then the court public online summary should be amended to reflect that. It certainly speaks to the lack of integrity and ethical misconduct of the court if this correction is not made. The court does not have the authority to lie to the Public.

I think in the local rules of court, the word "signature" is used about 24 times, yet by the Drapac letter, it appears the court does not comprehend what a signature is, nor is the court able to read and comprehend court forms that say very clearly "type or print your name" and "plaintiff signs here" and "second plaintiff signs here". And so forth, if the court understands English and mathematics. Six defendants so there should be six separate, distinct signatures. It is just part of administrative due process.

As the plaintiff, I have the constitutional right to know the charges against me and to confront the accuser; your falsification of the record interferes with my constitutional rights. This is fraud on the court by the cross- complainants, such fraud authorized by county employees.

As an example of to show court misconduct, I attach a working copy small claims complaint. The plaintiffs are Gregory C. Drapac, Sherri R. Carter, (four dwarfs) Dopey Dwarf, Grumpy Dwarf, Sneezy Dwarf, and Sleepy Dwarf. Six separate plaintiffs. Yet all signature spaces are only alledgedly signed by Gregory Drapac.

Not just to burden the Judge, but the clerk action is a refusal to perform ministerial and mandatory duties, and an abuse of discretion, actionable under GC section 815.6.

You mention CRC Rule 2.257 and so do I, because I believe it addresses the intent of the law. If the document does not require a signature under penalty of perjury, it is deemed signed by the party if filed electronically. Conversely, if a non-electronic document is submitted for filing, such as a small claims complaint, it is deemed filed if it is signed under penalty of perjury. In this instant case, the document in question was not signed under penalty of perjury by four of the defendants, thus the clerk should not have filed it. Under CRC rule 2.118 acceptance of paper for filing (or similar rule), the clerk of the court "must not accept for filing or file any papers that do not comply with the rules in this chapter...." Not signing a document for filing is not listed as an exception to the rule.

The cross complaint does not comply with local rules or the California Rules of Court. I am not surprised that the Drapac letter ignores the laws in this regard. You state in paragraph 3, "The clerk has a ministerial duty to file documents as submitted by the parties. There are certain circumstances where our clerks are allowed to reject a document, and there are clearly set by law. After review, we have determined that the defendants claim was properly accepted and filed." So you are ignoring the fact the clerk "must not accept for filing or file any papers that do not comply with the rules in this chapter...."? Are you ignoring the fact that four defendants did not follow the rules of the court, and defendant Walter Barratt committed fraud in signing for other defendants, who were themselves required to sign under penalty of perjury? This is court committed fraud and court sanctioned fraud on the Constitution.

You claim in your letter, "The clerk accepts the document as signed and does not scrutinize the validity of such signatures. It is not the purview of clerical staff to determine if the signatures are valid or not." The law says differently. Under CRC rule 2.118 acceptance of paper for filing (or similar rule), the clerk of the court "must not accept for filing or file any papers that do not comply with the rules in this chapter....". Under CCP section 116.930(a) (as already quoted to you) "Each small claims division shall provide in each courtroom in which small claims actions are heard a current copy of a publication describing small claims court law and the procedures that are applicable in the small claims courts, including the law and procedures that apply to the enforcement of judgments". "The manual shall explain how to complete the necessary forms, how to determine the proper court in which small claims actions may be filed, how to present and defend against claims, how to appeal, how to enforce a judgment, how to protect property that is exempt from execution, and such other matters that the court deems necessary or desirable." By your scenario, Drapac, the clerk will tell each party that the Complaint does not have to be signed by each party? Is this what the clerks are doing?

So you would agree that by your scenario, I could present the attached working copy Drapac-Four-Dwarfs complaint for filing and the clerk would not have a ministerial, discretionary, or mandatory duty to ascertain have the individual plaintiffs signed the complaint?

Please forward me copies of any and all court cases where a Judge ruled that a court employee can file non-electronic complaints without a party’s signature.

As I said on 11/5, "Under CCP section 128.7, every pleading or other similar paper must be signed by the party." As you are an officer of the court, I want to know Drapac are you refusing to follow the intent and letter of CCP section 128.7? You claim "the clerk does not scrutinize the validity of the signatures. It is not the purview of clerical staff to determine if the signatures are valid or not." So if I file in person the Drapac-Four-Dwarfs complaint, no one will question it if I do not sign it at all?

This letter is pursuant to a damage claim to be filed for continuing damages.

This matter is in the Public Interest. Therefore I have posted it to the worldwide web at the link below.

All rights reserved.

Geary J. Johnson

c: Judicial Council of California 455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 Phone: 415-865-4200

c: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

c: State Bar of California

CCP section 116.930(a)

Rule 2.118. Acceptance of papers for filing
(a) Papers not in compliance
The clerk of the court must not accept for filing or file any papers that do

not comply with the rules in this chapter, except the clerk must not reject

a paper for filing solely on the ground that:
(1) It is handwritten or hand-printed;
(2) The handwriting or hand printing on the paper is in a color other than

black or blue-black; or
(3) The font size is not exactly the point size required by rules 2.104 and

2.110(c) on papers submitted electronically in portable document format (PDF). Minimal variation in font size may result from converting a document created using word processing software to PDF.

 

(Editor: this letter was faxed and mailed on December 18. Parts have been redacted. Which government employees are doing their job? Who knows.)

 LACourtCorruption






| Inside Hyundai-Kia Fuel Class Action | LA Court Corruption |
| Return Home | Rep Karen Bass re Hyundai | Opposition to Sale of Property | What's New | Corrupt Los Angeles Rent Control | City LA Civil Rights Lawsuit re Hi Point Apts | Racism in America | Inside the Law Firm | California EDD Corruption |
 
 



Copyright © 2020, attorney-ethics-elderly-abuse.com. All rights reserved.