reply 6f e058417 cooper amended pos
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
1/16
!1
E058417!
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
Court of Appeal E058417L.A. Superior Court YC064994
Lead for additional SuperiorCourt consolidated casesEttlin v. Slawson, YC065018
Ettlin v. Kriegler, YC065019
Ettlin v. Taylor, YC065021
Ettlin v. Kuhl, YC065164
Cooper v. Weinbach, SC113064
Cooper v. Levanas, SC113135
Cooper v. Todd, SC113137Cooper v. Ashmann, SC113136
Daniel COOPER,an individual;
Plaintiff/Appellant
)))))))))))
)
v.
Elia WEINBACH,an individual;
Defendant/Respondent.
Appeal From a Judgment ofThe Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
The Honorable Robert OBrien
APPELLANTS REPLY TO RESPONDENTS BRIEF
Daniel Cooper, In Pro Per1836 10th Street #BSanta Monica, CA 90404310-562-7668
Kevin M. McCormickBenton, Orr, Duval and Buckingham39 North California Street,Post Office Box 1178Ventura, California 93002
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
2/16
!2
E058417!
!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 4
II. JUDICIAL BIASES ARE NOT ARGUED JUST DISMISSED .................... 5
III. NO APPRECIATION OF STURGEON I........................................................ 5
IV. RESPONDENTS TRIVIALIZE THE CAPERTON DECISION.................... 7
V. RESPONDENTS IGNORE CHALLENGES IN STURGEON II.................... 8
VI. RESPONDENTS IGNORE THE CJP ANALYSIS ........................................ 8
VII. FALSE STATEMENT BY RESPONDENTS .............................................. 9
VIII. SMELLS LIKE A BRIBE ......................................................................... 10
IX. PLAINTIFFS ARE PATRIOTIC NOT VEXATIOUS ................................... 12
X. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 12
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
3/16
!3
E058417!
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc.,
566 U.S. ___ (2009) ...................................................................7, 12
Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) ......................................... passim167 Cal.App. 6, 630, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 242 rev. denied 12/23/08
Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2010)191 Cal.App. 4th 344 .............................................................. passim
Statutes
28 U.S.C. 2403 (b) (Determination of Constitutionality) ...................8
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Constitution, First Amendment ................................................12
Codes
California Code of Civil Procedure ...................................................4
California Government Code .......................................................8, 10
SBX2 11 ................................................................................. passim(2009 Cal. Legis. Serv., 2nd Ex. Sess., Chap. 9 (S.B. 11)
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
4/16
!4
E058417!
I. SUMMARYJudicial Officers may indeed merit pay increases. The current supplemental
judicial payments are not the way to do it. The current payment system isunconstitutional, violates the California Code of Civil Procedure, and ignores the biases
that arise from the county payments. The payments directly by the Superior Courts may
even be illegal.
Respondents, through the Court Counsel, are fixated on absolute judicial
immunity. In spite of the copious legal references supporting immunity, they never
address why Section 5 of SBX2 11 legislation was needed or why it was needed so
hastily. How was the authorization of payments stated any differently in SBX2 11 than
in the Lockyer-Isenberg statute? For Respondents, Lockyer-Isenberg was only a little
bit unconstitutional per se, just like a little bit pregnant.
The Standard of Review for this case is NOT an abuse of discretion. Plaintiffs
loss of multiple constitutional guarantees requires a STRICT SCRUTINY standard of
review by judges who, at a minimum, have never taken the supplemental judicial
benefits.
Elia Weinbach took $153,549 of unconstitutional monies from Los Angeles
County and participated in tax fraud by not paying federal or state taxes on that money.
Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) held the payments
unconstitutional, stripping him of judicial immunity. The Commission on Judicial
Performance has determined SBX2 11 to be unconstitutional, the payments illegal thus
denying Weinbach the Legislatures retroactive immunity, itself unconstitutional.
The consolidated cases include three Justices of the Appellate Court because
they took county payments while serving in the Superior Court. Californias legislature,
Supreme Court and Attorney General must address this issue immediately to preclude a
Federal Court from overseeing the dismantling of the largest judicial corruption case in
the United States.
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
5/16
!5
E058417!
II. JUDICIAL BIASES ARE NOT ARGUED JUST DISMISSEDRespondents approach to discussing Plaintiffs contention of bias, bribes and
fraud is to simply dismiss them as having no basis in fact or law, page 8, line 4. To
the contrary, Judge OBrien overruled this portion of Respondents Demurrer and
stated, the allegations upon which plaintiff relies are clearly stated, and, although
unsound, are not uncertain, vague or ambiguous [AA-337].
The former spokesman for the judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court stated
that the majority of the Judges see the judicial payments as an entitlement1. They have
no appreciation or sensitivity to the fact they are essentially being paid twice for the
same work. It was clear that the judges financial self interest is so tied up in those
benefit payments, that no judge can rule on the propriety of those benefits.
Consequently, there is the appearance of a code of silence by the judges on this issue.
Accordingly, the judgment entered in favor of Judge Weinbach should be
DENIED.
III. RESPONDENTS SHOW NO APPRECIATION FORSTURGEON ISturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) Rev. denied
12/23/08, (Sturgeon I) held that the L.A. County payments to L.A. Superior Court
judges violated Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution because the 1997
Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act, while it DID authorize judicial benefits, it
did NOT set any standards for exercising the delegated authority and THUS the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!One judge apparently remarked that if the payments were terminated, there go my
Hollywood Bowl tickets. Media coverage by Full Disclosure The News Behind The
News 2012, AAW/Full Disclosure Network ; Court Insider Exposes Judicial
Treachery #630-632; Release Date: November 16, 2012
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/2012/11/court-insider-exposes-judicial-treachery/!!
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
6/16
!6
E058417!
authorization under Lockyer-Isenberg of judicial benefits payments by counties to
Superior Court judges was an unconstitutional delegation of power.
There is no such thing as a little bit unconstitutional. And yet Respondents
boldly proclaim on page 5, next to last line, that the payments are constitutional under
Sturgeon I. On page 9, Respondents continue to claim the payments are not
unconstitutional per se. Then they continue on the last line stating the payments are
only unconstitutional because... Lockyer-Isenberg was only a little bit
unconstitutional, (to borrow a popular metaphor) just like a little bit pregnant.
Very importantly, while SBX2 11 attempted to give immunity for receiving the
unconstitutional payments, Senate bill SBX2 11, Section 5, made no mention of
retroactive immunity for judges or temporary judges who had received the county
payments and did not disclose such and presided over cases in which the county had an
interest.
A spokesman for the Los Angeles Superior Court recently characterized the
long-held and prevailing attitudes among Los Angeles County Judges as follows:
..like so many people in Court who havent yet gotten confortable with the fact
that the Court is no longer a County agency and that is why you see this particular court
locked in such a futile battle with the AOC [Administrative Office of the Courts].
Judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court still are not ready to accept that.
the County Courts became entities of the State and the State runs the show
The Los Angeles Court is not ready to agree that power has shifted and the
judges here no longer have it.
[Sturgeon] held that Boards of Supervisors didnt have the statutory powers to
make those payments because the Legislature had never specifically enacted a law
allowing that, so the overall purpose of that bill [SBX2 11] was to clean that up
The fact that those payments had been, strictly speaking, illegal for years was
never addressed
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
7/16
!7
E058417!
..there were courts, a couple of them, that were illegally diverting Court
operating money to pay extra benefits, so the farther the AOC got into it, the clearer it
became that there was the makings of a widespread scandal about self-dealing, and
self interest by judges 2
Judge Weinbach currently displays no appreciation for the impact of the
Sturgeon decisions. He also continues a great bias against Appellant for daring to insist
on equal 50% treatment in matters of child custody and division of financial assets.
IV. RESPONDENTS TRIVIALIZE THE CAPERTON DECISIONRespondents assert that the Caperton case only involved an extreme
contribution of $3 million to overturn a $50 million verdict. While the one time
contribution of $3 million was large by many peoples standard, it represented just 6%
of the verdict hoping to be overturned. Respondent totally fails to address the fact that
for Los Angeles County, the $30 million in judicial payments to over 400 judges netted
$170 million in Title IV-D funds alone. That is a 467% payoff! Perhaps Court Counsel,
Brett Bianco, fails to see this County payoff as extreme, because his own supplemental
judicial benefits money [AA402] amounts to only a paltry 22% salary increase annually.
Looked at differently, from the Litigation Managers point of view, the $30
million is a VERY extreme contribution when compared to the $90 million of publicly-
admitted actual settlements and legal fees (AA144-145). The legal fees of $44 million
were the lowest in 5 years. For 2007-2008, the manager touted that the countys
prevailing in 66% of trials and 90% of appellate cases.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2!Media coverage by Full Disclosure The News Behind The News 2012, AAW/Full
Disclosure Network ; Court Insider Exposes Judicial Treachery #630-632; Release
Date: November 16, 2012
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/2012/11/court-insider-exposes-judicial-treachery/
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
8/16
!8
E058417!
V. RESPONDENTS IGNORE THE COURTS OWN CALL FORTAXPAYER CHALLENGES INSTURGEON II
Plaintiffs filed these 10 suits because Judges who personally accepted payments
from anyone other than the State of California lost all the immunity protections cited by
Respondents. For this reason, Plaintiff ignores all the references to judicial immunity or
government code protections for state employees. Sturgeon Ivoided all those immunity
protections. Respondents are in denial as to both the outcome and the impact of
Sturgeon I.
Sturgeon IIstates that the situation post SBX2 11 preserved the status quo
ante Sturgeon I [AA-140] and give[s] rise to further challenges by taxpayers.
Thus, SBX2 11 solved nothing. Plaintiffs are not vexatious but rather following the
actions expressly stated in Sturgeon IIby the Fourth Appellate Court [AA-140].
Accordingly, the judgment entered in favor of Judge Weinbach should be
DENIED.
VI. RESPONDENTS IGNORE THE CJP ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONSThe Commission on Judicial Performance has determined that SBX2 11 is
unconstitutional for several reasons. Respondents totally ignore that analysis as well as
all prior Attorney General analyses and opinions. [AA-165]. Plaintiff is entitled to, and
will soon be requesting, a ruling from the California Attorney General certifying the
constitutionality of SBX2 11. The request will be pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court
Rules 14.1 (e)(v) and Rule 29(4)(c) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403 (b). This case will
be before the U.S. Supreme Court in a few short months.
The Standard of Review for this case is NOT for an abuse of discretion. The loss
of multiple constitutional guarantees requires a STRICT SCRUTINY standard of
review. Furthermore, the scrutiny must come from judges who, at a minimum, have
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
9/16
!9
E058417!
never taken the supplemental judicial benefits, never advocated for Californias
judicial officers, and with minimal professional ties to judicial officers.
VII. FALSE STATEMENT BY RESPONDENTS! Number ONE: on page 6, item B. first line and again on page 12, B. line 1,
Respondents claim It is indisputable that Ettlin and Cooper have sued the respondents
in their respective capacities as the judicial officer .. That is false. Every one of the
ten complaints is captioned with the respondent as An Individual. Appellants sought
to strike the demurrer in every one of the cases arguing the cases were not filed against
judicial officers but were properly pleaded against individuals. Appellants attempted to
properly serve the individuals at their places of work. Court Counsel used the L.A.
County Sheriff to intimidate Plaintiff Ettlin into not serving the individuals. The same
Superior Court supported Court Counsel and refused to issue a restraining order [AA-
252] allowing Plaintiff to properly serve the individuals. Plaintiffs made every effort to
treat the individuals as the disqualified judges they are. It is the Respondents who
arbitrarily decided that Pro Per litigants had improperly sued, and then Respondents
based their entire demurrer on the protections of government employees and judicial
immunity. In fact, it is Court Counsel which is engaged in misuse of public funds.
Number TWO: On page 7, item V, A, Line 1, Respondents incorrectly state that
Plaintiffs claim the mere receipt of local judicial benefits is unconstitutional. In fact, it
is the Fourth Appellate Court, in Sturgeon I, that has stated the mere receipt of
payments is unconstitutional. While Plaintiffs agree with the Fourth Appellate Courtand the CJP, the Plaintiffs suits are additionally based upon, and have repeatedly stated
that Respondents were sued because they not only received the unconstitutional county
payments but they also did not disclose such and most importantly presided over cases
in which the county had an interest.
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
10/16
!10
E058417!
Respondents seem incapable of seeing the linkage between the county revenues
(interests) generated in Traffic Court and Family Court. Respondents have never
addressed the revenue issues of Traffic Court and Family Court. In fact, footnote 9 on
page 7 demonstrates that Court Counsel as well as many judicial officers think that the
County of Los Angeles is a sovereign entity. It is Respondents own understanding of
our government that is absurd and unworkable.
While Respondents are incapable of seeing the revenue biases and county
interests in Plaintiffs suits, Court Counsel is itself actively engaged in seeking to
disqualify a different Los Angeles County Judge. Plaintiff understands that she is biased
against the County Foster Care program and thus causes a loss of Title IV-F Foster Care
revenues. Judge Amy Pellman receives the county payments but is not perceived to be
keeping the bargain.
Justice Posner of the 7th Circuit stated in his remarks relating to Sir Francis
Bacon, that the judge who does not fulfill the bargain after he has taken the money is
equally as corrupt as the judge who takes the money and fulfills the bargain.
VIII. SMELLS LIKE A BRIBEPlaintiff also ignores all citations to the Government Codes protecting
government entities and employees. Plaintiffs are not suing any governmental entity or
any person in their role as a governmental employee. The receipt of County payments is
not within the scope of employment and therefore may give the appearance of a bribe.
Plaintiffs are suing for denial of their constitutional rights. Just as the BANE civil rights
act separates organizations (CCC 51.7), from individuals (CCC 52.1), so Plaintiff
sues Elia Weinbach as an individual, not as part of his employment organization.
The constitutional test for the county payments is whether Ettlin and Cooper
would be prosecuted for bribery if they gave money to the persons representing
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
11/16
!11
E058417!
themselves as judges in their cases. Neither Plaintiffs nor the County of Los Angeles
are sovereign entities and therefore payments by either must be governed by equal
protection.
Respondents also ignore the similarity of the county payments to the case in
western Pennsylvania where Judge Ciavarella was charged with racketeering, bribery
and extortion for sentencing thousands of young people and funneling them into two
private detention centers3. Prosecutors say those centers were run by his friends who
slipped him payments in a cash for kids scheme. A friend and developer, Mr. Powell,
pleaded guilty to being an accessory to a conspiracy; and a builder, Robert Mericle,
who was Mr. Ciavarellas close friend, pleaded guilty to failing to report a felony,
(MISPRISION of FELONY).
Plaintiffs seek to end the biases against fathers. Children deserve equal (50%)
time with both parents. Denying custody to fathers in exchange for federal welfare
dollars is another cash for kids racketeering, bribery and extortion scheme.
Court Counsel is not content impugning the integrity of courageous Pro Per
litigants. It is also mounting a campaign4
against one of Los Angeles County Superior
Courts own Judges, Amy Pellman, for taking the county money and not fulfilling her
end of the bargain. Apparently Judge Pellman believes that children belong with their
parents. But every child not sent to foster care costs Los Angeles County Title IV-F
reimbursements. Foster Care is NOT one of the causes of action in Plaintiffs 10 cases.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 See New York Times article at,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/us/09judge.html?ref=markaciavarella4 See Los Angeles Times article at,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-newton-column-dependency-court-judge-20121105,0,458283.column
!
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
12/16
!12
E058417!
IX. PLAINTIFFS ARE PATRIOTIC NOT VEXATIOUSPlaintiffs have filed 10 cases to adequately indicate the scope of damages
foreseen by the legislative commission (AA-276). The 10 cases are filed in 2 counties,by 3 individuals, against individuals in the Superior Court and the Second Appellate
Court, implicate both Los Angeles County and the Superior Court of Los Angeles, and
cover 8 different causes of action as sources of bias against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
prepared an additional 6 cases against different judges but have not filed these cases
until the constitutional questions have been resolved. Respondents have demonstrated a
clear pattern of unconstitutional behavior and a systematic denial of civil rights.
Plaintiffs read the Sturgeon II decision as an invitation by the Appellate Court
for citizens to bring this kind of suit. Denial of basic civil rights and the First
Amendment petitions to redress those injuries cannot be deemed meritless or frivolous.
Consequently, Appellant also requests that Respondent not be awarded any fees
or costs.
X. CONCLUSIONAppellant requests this Court to overturn and deny the judgment by the Los
Angeles Court favoring Elia Weinbach in order to protect its county payments. If
judges truly had absolute judicial immunity, there would be no need for the
Commission on Judicial Performance or for the Caperton decision. For all of the
above stated reasons, Petitioner respectfully urges the Court to grant appropriate
relief as may be just and proper.
Dated: June 3, 2013
Respectfully submitted, __________________________________
Daniel Cooper
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
13/16
!13
E058417!
VERIFICATION
FORM No. 2
Verification of Pleading (Code Civ. Proc., 446)
Declaration under Penalty of Perjury Form
(Code Civ. Proc., 446, 2015.5)By Party Daniel Cooper
CASE TITLE:Daniel Cooper, an individual;
Petitioner/Appellant
v.
Elia WEINBACH, an individual;
Defendant/Respondent.
I, Daniel Cooper, in Pro Per, declare:
I am the signatory to the civil case SC113064.
I am the Petitioner and Appellant in the above-titled matter.
I have read the foregoing Reply Brief and know the contents thereof.
The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters, which are
therein stated on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe it to be
true. This verification was executed on June 3, 2013, at Los Angeles County,
California.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
_______________________________Daniel Cooper, In Pro Per1836 10th Street #BSanta Monica, CA 90404310-562-7668
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
14/16
!14
E058417!
CERTIFICATE OF LENGTH
I, Daniel Cooper, in Pro Per, certify pursuant to the California Rules of Court,
that the word count for this document is 3,300 words or less, excluding the tables,
this certificate, and any attachment permitted. This document was prepared in
Microsoft Word and this is the word count generated by the program for this
document.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct. Executed, on June 3, 2013, at Los Angeles
County, California.
____________________________Daniel Cooper, In Pro Per1836 10th Street, #BSanta Monica, CA 90404310-562-7668
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
15/16
! PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL --CIVIL
DanielCooper,InPropriaPersona
AMENDED
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
E058417 / SC113064PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: Daniel Cooper, an IndividualRESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: Elia Weinbach, an Individual
I am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My residence address is
Anthony Locatelli, 4084 Mt Acadia Blvd, San Diego, CA 92111
On June 10, 2013,I served on the interested parties in this action (SEE ATTACHEDSERVICE LIST with type and address) the following document(s)
APPELLANTS REPLY TO RESPONDENTS BRIEF with Amended Proof of
Service
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that theforegoing is true and correct.
Executed on June 10, 2013 at San Diego, California,
________________________________Anthony Locatelli
-
7/28/2019 Reply 6f e058417 Cooper Amended Pos
16/16
! PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL --CIVIL
DanielCooper,InPropriaPersona
SERVICE LIST
E058417 / SC113064PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: Daniel Cooper, an IndividualRESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: Elia Weinbach, an Individual
e-Mail Service Co-Appellant:Dennis Ettlin27222 Paseo LomitaSan Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
e-Mail Service -- Defendant:Kevin M. McCormickBenton, Orr, Duval and Buckingham39 North California Street, Post Office Box 1178Ventura, California [email protected]
Mail - Courtesy CopyHon. Robert H. OBrienSuperior Court of California County of Los AngelesStanley Mosk Courthouse111 N. Hill StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012
e-Filing Supreme Court of California
See Amended Proof of Service with
Fourth Appellate Court forcopy of email confirmation.