|
|
 |
 |
|
|
LACourtCorruption
Frequently asked questions What is the core lawsuit about? The plaintiff is suing for lack of intercom repair, negligence, denial of tandem parking, bad faith, nominal and general damages, specific performance. The complaint alleges about $8,000 in damages and stems back three years.
What is an intercom? Many older box apartment buildings or condominiums require front door to unit intercom ("call box") systems to alert tenants in a safe manner. Newer buildings may require the intercom system to be connected to a fire alarm system. Hundreds or thousands of buildings in Los Angeles have intercom systems. The lawsuit alleges that the intercom system of two Black tenants needs repair (since 2014).
What is tandem parking? Tandem parking is where two cars park behind each other. The building in question has about 13 single parking stalls and 7 tandem stalls. There are eighteen one bedroom units. The lawsuit alleges that since 2016, the owner has at least 2 extra parking stalls but refuses to assign Black tenants an extra or tandem parking stall. The city has valued parking stalls in high density areas at $200 per stall.
Who are the defendants? Walter Barratt, property owner; Hi Point Apts LLC; Power Property Management Group, Inc., management company, Brett Parsons, employee of Power Property; Cynthia Reynosa, Power Property employee who cashes the checks, and resident property manager Kassandra Harris.
Why are the defendants cross suing the plaintiff? The defendants claim "retaliation, harassment, prior small claims case 14S03695 litigated 2014; Defamation, Frivolous lawsuit claims with the City; other frivolous lawsuits; vexatious litigant". The defendants are claming loss of rental income. (Counter-defendants are Brett Parsons (Ph. 310-593-3955), Cynthia Reynosa ( (Ph. 310-593-3955), Kassandra Harris (213-908-8008), Walter Barratt/Hi Point Apts LLC (310-895-6693), and Power Property Group (management company) (Ph. 310-593-3955).
(Editor Note: Hi Point Apts. LLC made similar allegations in a 2016 federal court case; the court dismissed their claims and did not award Barratt any damages. Most of the defendants in the federal case were not the same. It is highly suspected by many that the cross complaint is retaliation because the Black tenant claimed racial discrimnation. The plaintiff has made previous complaints to code enforcement and rent control. The statute of limitation on personal injury is three years. Complaints about housing services and racial discrimination are considered to be "protected activity".) The property at 1522 Hi Point St 90035 was the subject of media attention in a full page ad in Random Lengths news (online out of San Pedro), p. 17, February 22, 2018, "Why racism thrives in America: unfair housing".
Where can I get more information?
Click Here
 Update February 19, 2021
Court charged with Illegal Exparte Communication
Subject: Zoom Problems and Small Claims Case 19STSC14394- Ex Parte Communication Prohibited
FROM: G Johnson (EMAIL REDACTED) TO : executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov Sherri R. Carter, Gregory Drapac, Nancy Bullock (via facsimile) Presiding Judge Kevin C. Brazile Hilda L. Solis, Holly J. Mitchell. Sheila Kuehl. Janice Hahn, Kathryn Barger Dear Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors et al.: I refer to the court hearing held today at 10:00 am and the lack of diligence of court employees to maintain a fair and ethical court hearing. I assume there was employee error not attributed to equipment malfunction. My records show I signed in by court zoom at 9:58 am and was connected for audio and video. At that point I do not see anyone else on the screen but myself. The screen says,"The operator has muted your audio." I can then see myself on the screen (right upper corner) and I can see what the court sees. I cannot see any other participants. At 10:08 it appears the court may be zooming two hearings at once; on my screen I see that the audio is connected for the appearing defendants in my case but my audio is still muted. I see video turned off for the other defendants. At nine after ten since I have no audio and see no other defendants in the video, and the clerk has not announced the hearing or called my name, I hold up a sign that says "Pic not streaming. Should I sign in again" to alert the zoom operator. Still no video of others but I do see myself but the streaming seems to not be working as intended. At 10:11, I am able to see video of defendant Power Property Management as well as myself. I now hear the conversation which has already started so I missed part of the conversation; I informed the court I had not heard the conversation. This talk occurred with me at seventeen after ten: Clerk: "I did let him (defendant) know there is a temporary Judge and he stated on his side the defendants do not agree to a temporary Judge." Me: "Ok, well I did not hear any of that because the video here was not streaming." Clerk: "I am just letting you know now. So I explained it to him (defendant) because he came in a lot earlier so because you are on now and you are the Plaintiff, I am letting you know that we have a temporary Judge...therefore the case will have to be continued." The clerk continues that she will send out notice of continuance, then I am cut off from audio again. Perhaps realizing I am cut off from the audio, court employee Stephanie calls me on the cell phone to let me know the hearing has been continued and at which point I again repeat that I did not see/hear almost any of the streaming and the audio. I now request a thorough investigation of when and why my mic was muted in order for the court to give unfair advantage to the defendants. The clerk of the court clearly stated that she was talking to the defendants "a lot earlier"; I came on at 9:58 am so how much earlier was she talking to the defendants? Why was she talking to the defendants without giving me opportunity to be present, which is a violation of my due process rights, and also a violation of the clerk's duty to act in an ethical manner? I should not be billed $23.00 for a court appearance in which I was denied the right to appear at the same time as the defendants, who according to the court were allowed to appear at a different time than myself. I request a transcript of the conversation the clerk had with the defendants while the court had muted my audio and turned off my video which the clerk admitted happened "a lot earlier" than when I appeared at 9:58 am; such an ex parte communication by the court clerk is prohibited. Such communication by the clerk without me as plaintiff being present, gave the defendants procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage over myself as plaintiff. "The appellate court affirmed the decision to vacate and thoroughly analyzed section 1286.2, which “vests the trial court with the power to vacate an arbitration award that has been procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.” Although the statute does not define “undue means”, the Court explained that “a fundamentally fair hearing requires... notice, opportunity to be heard and to present relevant and material evidence and argument before the decision makers ...." The Court held that an ex parte communication between a party arbitrator and a neutral arbitrator while the decision remains under consideration “undermines the fairness and integrity” of the arbitration process. Thus, a resulting award is one procured through “undue means”.....Although the Maaso case involved the comparatively unique situation where a party’s arbitrator makes the impermissible ex parte communication, the prohibition on various types of ex parte contact is, for attorneys, clearly defined. The California Rules of Professional Conduct identify a number of prohibited ex parte communications. For example, Rule Rule 5-300 states that an attorney “shall not directly or indirectly communicate with or argue to a judge or judicial officer upon the merits of a contested matter pending before such judge or judicial officer, except: (1) In open court; or (2) With the consent of all other counsel in such matter; or (3) In the presence of all other counsel in such matter; or (4) In writing with a copy thereof furnished to such other counsel; or (5) In ex parte matters. A similar prohibition is found in 2-100, which governs attorneys communicating ex parte with parties who are known to be represented by counsel." https://www.sdcba.org/index.cfm?pg=Legal-Ethics-Corner-6-4-2012 (A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter,* except as follows: (1) When circumstances require it, ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, which does not address substantive matters, is permitted, provided: (a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; and.... (D) A judge shall make reasonable efforts, including providing appropriate supervision, to ensure that this Rule is not violated by court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control. Rule 2.9: Ex Parte Communications A response is appreciated. All rights reserved. Geary Juan Johnson https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/2/messages/159460?.src=ym Page 3 of 3 Court Official Says Not Following Court Procedure is Business as Usual 
SUBJECT: Corruption and Fraud on the Court by Court Employees FROM: G Johnson (EMAIL REDACTED) TO: executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov Please fire Bullock and Drapac Dear LA County Board of Supervisors: I ask for an investigation of Director Nancy Bullock based on the attached January 22, 2021 letter (attached). As Bullock admits my statement, "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 also asked the Court "I would also like to know in how many instances the court did require the signature to reasonably match the name of the party." "The court does not have the authority to lie to the Public," I have previously stated. The court record shows that six cross complaints have been filed, yet only one cross complaint is on file; this is a mistake of the court, not anyone else that the Court can blame it on because the court knows there is only one cross complaint, not six. If the court entered the cross complaint into the court summary record, it should have exercised due diligence to ascertain was CCP section 128.7 being followed, and was the clerk performing its mandatory duty: "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....”. Unless the clerk of the court is completely without intelligence, the cross complaint was clearly not signed under penalty of perjury by the printed names of four of the cross complainants; surely all clerks of the court know how to read and comprehend English. Bullock claims the cross-complaint was properly accepted and filed. I disagree. Bullock ignores the applicable laws/rules of court in this matter. Bullock is participating in and refusing to perform mandatory duties under CRC rule 2.118. Please terminate from employment any and all court employees such as Nancy Bullock and Gregory Drapac who intentionally say they will not comply with the rules of court. I have asked the city and county attorney's office to investigate this as a criminal matter. All rights reserved. Geary Juan Johnson
LA County Superior Court Official Says Clerks Not Doing Their Job LACourtCorruption Thursday, December 17, 2020 Gregory C. Drapac Falsification of the record by the court 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 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 not comply with the rules in this chapter, except the clerk must not reject a paper for filing solely on the ground that: black or blue-black; or 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 | |
||
 |
 |
