3
Showing posts with label Corrupt Judge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corrupt Judge. Show all posts

Sunday, June 6, 2010

John A. Clarke...Superior Court clerk conspiracy! Citizen Rights Violations!




Corrupt Judge Parkin ran slush fund!




If you happen to go downtown to the Los Angeles Superior Court clerk's office, and peruse through some of the old case files on the computer terminal, you might notice something particularly suspicious if you have a keen eye!

In spite of the fact a handful of court files that are getting moldy after ten years should have been expunged from the record according to - State Statutes, Civil Code of Procedure, and so forth and so on - the dog-eared files remain in the public record for any old "joe" to sift through.

Suspicious?

You betcha!

But, there are more sinister crimes afoot at the Los Angeles Superior Court House - which warrant an investigation by high-level Law Enforcement or the Attorney General's Office - because justice cries out for it.

For example, on a couple of occasions when  I was at the courthouse conducting research, I stumbled across complaints against individuals - rife with wild accusations that were quite defamatory in nature - which were never served on the alleged "defendants" in the action.

In one instance, it was established on at least two occasions at hearings set by the judge presiding over the proceedings, that there was no service effected on the accused party.

But, get this!

In spite of that glaring irregularity, the case has remained in open file status for over ten years, with no effort made by the court or the accusing parties to resolve the issue.

Curious indeed, when you consider that an individual is entitled to be given notice of such a proceeding, and allowed - pursuant to the concept of "due process" of Law - to appear and challenge the allegations with the aim of exonerating themselves and protecting their good name in the public record.

In this instant case, I surmise that the so-called "evidence" was manufactured - and that the attorneys for the plaintiffs - had no intention of serving the "victim" at all from the get-go.

In sum, the individuals in question, lodged the complaint against the unsuspecting party with the specific aim of damaging their reputation.

The fact that no service was effected, and the court neglected (!) to dismiss the case, hints that the Clerk of Los Angeles Superior Court is somehow involved in the conspiracy.

Is John A. Clarke taking payola to look the other way?

If not, why haven't these case files been destroyed in accordance with the law of the land which requires it (in the aforementioned case for obvious reasons) within the given time span?

When you consider the fact that Presiding Judge Parkin got caught running a slush fund (which received healthy contributions from lawyers in the Los Angeles legal community) - in restrospect - it all makes sense to me.

Parkin is in on the scam, too.

What other explanation can their be for such an grievous oversight on the part of the Court?

News at 11!


Thursday, May 27, 2010

Justin Bieber...walks into glass door - twice! Ouch...



Justin Bieber was in the throes of exiting a building when he walked smack-dab into a glass plate window.

Ouch!

In a second incident the outgoing Pop Idol started to facilitate a revolving door when - bang! - he hit his head on a glass panel.

Merely a case of Linday Lohanism?

Maybe the whirlwind tours and and exhausting stage performances are taking their toll.

Not to worry, Justin!

I suffered a similar accident a few years ago.

I was viewing an apartment in West Hollywood when the Manager gestured for me to check out the outdoor patio.

When I proceeded to step outside I ended up walking into the squeaky-clean glass door.

I was stunned (and shocked).

The manager thought it was an open door, too.

For starters, I suffered a concussion. 

Then, when I happened to glance in the bathroom mirror a short while later, two black eyes stared back at me.

Suddenly, I found myself embroiled in legal battle over damages.

The insurance carrier - Prudential - fought tooth-and-nail to avoid paying up.

The adjusters were positively evil!

It appeared that I was having a run of bad luck when the case was assigned to an incompetent boob by the name of Judge Shimmer (considered one of the worst Judges in Santa Monica Superior Court at that time).

The bench warmer didn't know his a** from a hole in the ground.

Needless to say, he was the first incompetent corrupt judge I crossed paths with in the Superior Court judicial system in Los Angeles.

Edmund Burke once opined:

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."



Wednesday, January 20, 2010

The Art of the Steal...Barnes Collection scandal! Power & greed saga in Philadelphia...


Matisse painting at heart of power struggle!







The "Art of the Steal" is an absorbing tale about the intrigues surrounding a billion-dollar art collection, the astute art-lover who painstakingly pieced the celebrated canvasses together over the course of his idyllic life, and a gang of big-city culture thugs out to wrest the spoils of his labor from their resting place in a gem of a museum with the express intent of capitalizing on the masterpieces.

Of course, I am referring to the Barnes collection of post-impressionist paintings, which is second to none anywhere on the planet.

In spite of the fact the documentary (prouduced by 9.14 pictures) is fairly pedestrian in approach (with occasional creative flourishes here and there to break the monotony) it is the subject matter that is downright fascinating.

I should preface this post by noting that I started my professional career as a "painter".

During my teens and twenties (during a particularly creative period) I exhibited a series or two of  abstract-expressionist paintings and fine line drawings in a myriad of art institutions; hence, I have first-hand knowledge of the gallery and museum scene.

In a nutshell, the film is basically a morality tale about greed and power.

In the opening scenes, the producers of this slick documentary, introduce filmgoers to Albert C. Barnes, a brilliant academic with a keen eye for art.

Shortly after Dr. Barnes discovered a treatment for veneral disease a few decades ago (by virtue of a drug named Argypol) he proceeded to embark on his quest to start-up a significant art collection from the spoils of his profit-making medical venture.

As luck would have it, Barnes was fortunate to cross paths with a handful of up-and-coming impressionist painters on overseas jaunts to Europe - Picasso and Matisse - for instance.

At a time when the art world - major museums, in particular - were focusing elsewhere on acquisitions for their permanent installations, Barnes snapped up canvasses that appealed to his artistic sensibilities at a time when the market was wide open.

In fact, Barnes - a Johnny-on-the-spot of sorts - was able to snatch up key pieces (best examples of painter's styles) for literally a song.

Once the diverse pieces began to stack up, the visionary collector  proceeded to build a museum to house the one-of-a-kind masterpieces.

The Barnes Foundation was subsequently founded in 1922.


Unlike a museum or gallery that tended to mount canvasses according to style and period, Barnes elected to focus on their stature instead; subsequently, he arranged them according to aesthetic value.

Over time, the walls were adorned with priceless works, he literally hung himself.

As a result, scholars collectors and academics hailed the museum  setting as a remarkable personal cultural experience.

From the start, Barnes vowed to cause an uproar in the social circles he abhorred.

Of course, that  didn't curry much favor with the Philadelphia elite who were the target of his acid barbs.

For example, he accused Philadelphia insiders of running a house of artistic and intellectual prostitution.

So, early on, Barnes created arch foes who plotted against him, thereafter.

A handful of his most staunch critics responded, for instance, by denouncing his paintings as "nasty" "debased" works of art that were downright "primitive".

For this reason, the discerning collector - with amazing taste - taunted his rivals to just try to get their hands on his priceless collection (which an Investure Trust would protect from beyond the grave in the event of his untimely demise. Or, so he thought).

It must have stung his harshest opponents when Matisse opined:

"The Barnes Museum is the only sane place in America to view art."

The collection boasts Cezanne's renowned "Card Players", a handful of exquisite Serault models, Matisse's remarkable LA DANCE (possibly worth a billion plus dollars in value if not simply priceless), and numerous Picassos, Van Goghs, etc.


In his mind, Barnes envisioned (and thereafter created &  sustained) an institution where students could study, art-lovers teach, and collectors indulge their artistic sensibilities.

The fussy connoisseur expected to raise the bar in respect to - not only the value of art - but its purpose in daily life.

Unfortunately, over time, Barnes incurred the wrath of a handful of the local power elite.

For starters, he began to bump heads with Walter Annenberg and his family, which owned the all-powerful mainstay daily in Philadelphia.

When Moses Annenberg (allegedly a gangster) was brought up on charges of tax evasion, Barnes ridiculed son Walter about his father's shortcomings.

Walter Annenberg never forgave the democrats for pursing his father so relentlessly, either.

Barnes didn't help matters when he posted notices around the museum which labelled his enemies basic whores and exploiters of art out for vulgar personal, professional, and monetary gains.

He slurred the locals when he referred to Philadelphia as an intellectual slum (which didn't help matters much after that).

Early on, two or three days during the course of the week were slated for art classes, while the  remaining few were allotted for public visits by art-lovers, collectors, and scholars (by appointment.only)

After Barnes died suddenly in a fatal auto crash and the museum directorship was handed over to one of his dedicated disciples - Violette De Mazia (a good friend & confidante) - Annenberg and the Philadelphia Inquirer began to criticize the museum (going so far as to allege that the Barnes facility was not meeting its mandate pursuant to its tax exempt status).

Angered at what they viewed as a snobby attitude about art and the institution that housed it, critics conspired to break down the halls, and go for control of the celebrated collection.

Shortly after a newspaper article reported that the Barnes Museum was violating its tax status, the museum relented and began to schedule regular viewings for tourists, art lovers, and the like (who pined to get inside the doors and gaze upon the priceless works of art).

At this juncture, what was once a peaceful setting in the suburbs, erupted into a a storm of controversy when busloads of art-lovers and lookie-loo's roared into the neighborhood and upset the once-tranquil historic streets.

Enemies rubbed their hands with glee; after all, they were plotting to shut-down the museum.

Ah, just the ammunition they needed!

In addition to the neighborhood problems surfacing daily, opponents argued that unless authorities stepped in and took charge, the rare collection would be at risk of damage since the old museum was allegedly in a bad state of disrepair.

Their vision?

A permanent installation at the Philadelphia Art Gallery downtown.

Although some thought the "Barnes Investure" was iron clad, there was a loophole which the enemies of Barnes blasted wide open.


Violette de Mazia faithfully remained at the helm for about thirty years and carried out Barnes' wishes to a "t".

Indeed, the Museum flourished and gained respect in its capacity as a school and major art collection of undisputed value around the globe under her tutelage.

But, upon her death, the control of the Museum was unfortunately transferred to Lincoln University according to the last wishes of Barnes.

At this juncture, the roof literally tumbled down, when an ambitious lawyer was installed as head of the non-profit foundation.

At his bidding, Annenberg was invited into the fold, and the two began plotting.

Although the will specifically stated that the collection must never be lent out - or be exploited solely to reap financial benefit - the clever lawyer found a technicality to further his cause.

On the grounds that the Museum needed funding for renovations and operating costs, he convinced a court to permit the Barnes Collection to go on tour (which ended up being a landmark Art event of the century which rustled up staggerings profits right out of the starters gate).

Now, the big surge was on to shut down the Barnes Museum and install the collection permanently at the Philaelphia Art Gallery.

Now, things got diabolical, to say the least.

The potboiler shifts into high gear as the documentary focuses on the court proceedings, power-plays made by city officials and the Directors at PEW (one of three foundations now in charge of the Barnes Collection), and the long drawn-out public outcry from Barnes supporters and respected Art establishments around the country.

The documentary catches all the maneuverings - and treacherous transparent plot twists, too - in intense on-the-edge-of-your-seat detail.

Curiously - with exception to  the Mayor - the "bad guys" singled out as the perpetrators of the" largest theft of art in this century" - would not utter a word in their own defense on camera (or even on record for that matter).

Not surprising; after all, the allegations were shocking.

All the documented evidence was pretty incriminating, too

In court, PEW's legal eagles alleged that the sole reason for wanting to transfer the art pieces was due to the fact there were insufficient funds to continue to safely and professionally display the art at the Barnes Museum.

Also, they boldly asserted that the museum could not operate properly because of limitations imposed by the city in respect to viewing hours.

There was also a question raised about insufficient parking.

The Barnes supporters countered that arrangements had been made to extend the hours of daily operation, build a much-needed parking structure, and secure sufficient funds to operate more comfortably.

But, the smoking gun was staggering!

One of the witnesses testified that he uncovered a fund written into the state budget that would provide $100 million dollars for the Barnes to be funded and housed at the Philadelphia Art Museum.

Curiously, the Judge was not informed of this little detail when PEW (and others) originally filed their motion with the court to shut down the Barnes Museum for altruistic reasons.

If there was $100 million in the kitty, obviously there were enough funds available for the Barnes to carry on.

More intriguing perhaps was the disclosure that an investigation was unable to determine - who applied for the $100 million, who approved it, and how it ended up being written into the state budget - with no one's apparent knowledge.

Yes, I suppose God does work in mysterious ways, eh?

But, the plot thickened.

The Barnes ) supporters accused PEW (currently in charge of the Barnes Collection by court order) of making a grab for the Barnes Collection in a deceitful effort to change their private foundation status to a non-profit.

Although PEW denied the charge vehemently, IRS documents confirmed that the Barnes Collection was - in fact - cited as grounds for a change of tax status in their legal paperwork filed with IRS officials.

Although the Barnes supporters were hopeful that the Judge would swing his ruling their way - especially after PEW'S dastardly deeds were reported to the court (with supporting documentary evidence) - the end results were disheartening.

In sum, the Judge ruled that "the friends" of Barnes had no legal standing; consequently, his honor denied their motion (request) to overturn the earlier decision which allowed the collection to be moved lock, stock, and barrel to a new gallery space at the Philadelphia Art Museum.

"They're going to turn it into the McBarnes Collection," some lamented, after the ruling was handed down.

Yup, they intend to serve up the art experience, like fast-food.

To many, the whole cultural experience - until now a unique one at the Barnes Museum - will be lost.

Worse than that, the art  thieves have not only violated Barnes last wishes, but spirited away the collection to bolster their own selfish greedy ends.

In the final analysis, it appears that the high and mighty operate above the law without  fear of recrimination.

In sum, power corrupts!



Portrait of Barnes mulling over his priceless collection!



________________________________________________________
Footnote

Please note that on the heels of this post being published @ the Tattler - a PEW representative contacted me by e-mail - and noted that the Charitable Trust has posted a rebuttal to the allegations at their web site.

To be fair, I penned an update on the issues, at the Tattler site.

Link:


Monday, May 12, 2008

Profile of Judge Robert R. Beezer...Ninth Circuit Appeals Judge, couldn't adjudicate way out of paper bag!


On occasion, a review of court documents reveals that a Judge presiding over a case not only failed to adjudicate an issue correctly, but made grievous error(s) which resulted in a gross violation of a party's Constitutional rights.

In addition, the facts may also signal a lack of integrity on the part of the Judge, which may have resulted in a corruption of the court.

Such is the case with Robert R. Beezer, a Senior Judge sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - who has demonstrated in one case that I know of - that he is not fit to "warm" the bench.

For example, in a case Beezer presided over a few years ago, a litigant appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on several issues - one of which - was pertaining to a lower court ruling denying a right to proceed IN FORMA PAUPERIS (waiver of filing fees).

In respect to the fee waiver issue, Beezer incorrectly ruled that because the "Petition for Relief" was denied in the lower court, and the appellant subsequently paid the filing fees thereafter, that the issue was "moot" in the Appellate court.

On the contrary.

Judge Beezer not only established his ignorance of applicable statutes, but a shocking willingness to deceitfully ignore his duty to uphold Justice in a "Court of Law" and openly discriminate against an IN PRO PER litigant.

Notwithstanding, his grievous legal error caused considerable hardship to the litigant involved, for which he should be ashamed.

For example, in the lower court the litigant was entitled to a "waiver of fees", based on his low income. That right was protected by Statute.

When the court failed to issue a ruling, and serve him with notice, the litigant was forced to pay the fees out of his meager earnings to salvage his "case".

Just because the appellant paid the filing fee, did not make the issue "moot". In fact, it made it more grievous and ripe for legal issue.

In sum, the litigant was denied his right to a waiver of fees. Because of this, he was forced to use funds - that would normally be used to pay for food, rent, and the necessities of life - to pay court costs to which he was legally entitled a waiver.

Was Judge Beezer too stupid to figure this out, or was he demonstrating his distaste for disadvantaged litigants without the benefit of funds to secure legal counsel?

The fact the appellant paid the fees under great hardship - and "did without the necessities of life" to do so - does not negate the fact he was denied his legal right to a waiver of fees, nor does it make the issue "moot".

In sum, Judge Robert R. Beezer's ruling is a bunch of hokus-pokus bullsh**.

In fact, the erroneous ruling - in the public record and available for close scrutiny by the wise, the mighty, and the compassionate - calls attention to a man who has not only fallen from Grace, but - ultimately - "is a disgrace" to the Judiciary and in the eyes of the Lord.

As Martin Erdmann aptly put it,

Appellate Division judges [are] the whores who became madams.”

 
coompax-digital magazine