In The Supreme Court of The State of California

SaveHollyw000d.Org and Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning

Respondent in Appeals Court v.

The City of Los Angeles, et alia Appellant in Appeals Court

consolidated in Appellate Court under

Fix the City, Inc. v.

The City of Los Angeles Appellate # B257712

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECEMBER 2014 APPELLATE ORDERS

After Orders by Justice Turner, Second Appellate District, Division 5, Case # B257712 (consolidated)

Superior Court of Los Angeles county Case Number BS138370

The Honorable Allan Goodman

Edward W. Pilot, Esq. A Professional Corporation 9107 Wilshire Boulevard #700 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 310/274-9602 Phone 310/274-7749 Fax Ed_Pilot@Hotmail.com Appearance Attorney for SaveHollywood.org

Richard MacNaughton, Esq. Attorney at Law 1916 N. Saint Andrews Place Hollywood, CA 90068 323/957-9588 Phone 323/464-7066 Fax MacNaughtonEsq@Gmail.com In pro per

Table of Contents Heading Page

Table of Contents -i-Table of Authorities

I. ISSUES PRESENTED 1

1 Lack of Jurisdiction 1

2. Lack of Due Process 1

II. WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED 2

1. The First Order 2

2. The Second Order 3

3. Orders Without Jurisdiction and Without Due Process are Void 3

III. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY 5

W. DISCUSSION 19

1. Judges and Justices May Not Be Allowed to Act Without Jurisdiction

19

2. Due Process is a Constitutional Right 20

3. An Attorney's Thoughts and Impressions are Absolutely Privileged 21

-i-

Table of Contents, continued

Heading Page

4. An Explanation Why Justice Turner Acted Without Jurisdiction Are Discernable 22

5. Power Corrupts, and Corruption Destroys Institutions 22

V. CEQA AUTHORIZES RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 24

VI. SUMMARY 25

VII. CONCLUSION 27

I. The Unacceptable Remedy 27

2. Proper Remedies With Respect to This Case 27

3. Additional Actions Which Need to Occur Beyond the Scope of this Particular Litigation 28

Table of Authorities Authority Page

Cases

BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal. App. 3d 1240, 245 Cal.Rptr. 682 22

Flatt v Superior (Daniels) (1994) 9 Ca1.4th 275 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 26

Rumac v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810 21

Scott v. McNeal 154 U. S. 34, 154 U. S. 46 (1893) 19, 23

Other Authorities

Cal. Const. Art. VI, § 10 18

Code of Civil Procedure, § 128.7 14

Code of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5 25

Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-310(C)

8-10, 12-14, 20, 23

California Rules of Court, Rule 8.500

1

Declaration of Independence 1776

23

January 31, 2015 LA Times, U.S. Judges See 'Epidemic' of Prosecutorial Misconduct in State, 26

-iii-

Table of Authorities, continued

Authority Page

The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes 1651 24

Lord Dalberg-Acton, April 1887 letter to Mandell Creighton 22

-iv-

PETITION FOR REVIEW

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.500, Save-

Hollywood.org, aka People for Livable Communities, an unincor-

porated association [SaveHywd] and its Attorney Richard Mac

Naughton [Attorney MacNaughton] respectfully Petition for

Review of the December 26, 2014 orders of the Second Appellate

District, Division Five.

I. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Lack of Jurisdiction

May the appellate court make orders on matters over which

it has no jurisdiction?

2. Lack of Due Process

May the appellate court determine a material issue without

providing Due Process?

/1/

Page 1 of 29

II. WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED

On December 26, 2014, Paul Turner, presiding justice

Division 5 of the Second Appellate District, issued two orders. The

first order was without jurisdiction, without Due Process and

without a record. The second order was fatally tainted to the extent

it was based upon the void first order. The Supreme Court may not

condone a Justice's acting with purposeful lack of jurisdiction.

1. The First Order

The first order removed SaveHywd's attorney, Richard Mac

Naughton, as its attorney. The order stated in its entirety:

The court finds the law firm of Angel Law is the only firm authorized to represent plaintiff, SaveHolly-wood.Org. Mr. MacNaughton is to file no further papers as counsel for Save Hollywood.Org. December 26, 2014 Order re representation copy attached

This order also operated to remove SaveHywd from its own

litigation. Angel Law [Frank Angel] represents a non-party who is

masquerading as SaveHywd.

///

Page 2 of 29

2. The Second Order

On November 12, 2014 in this appeals court, Attorney Mac

Naughton had made a formal motion for his two clients, SaveHywd

and Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning [HELP] to be

Dismissed from the appeal. On December 26, 2014, Justice Turner

ruled on that motion, dismissing HELP but not dismissing Save-

Hywd on the grounds that Attorney MacNaughton was not

SaveHywd' s attorney, and thus, his motion was inoperable as to

SaveHywd.

The dismissal motion by plaintiff, Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning is granted. The dismissal motion of plaintiff, Save Hollywood.Org, filed by Richard S. MacNaughton is denied. Attorney MacNaughton has no authority to file such a motion on behalf of Save Hollywood.Org. No costs in favor of any party are awarded as to Hollywoodians Encourag-ing Logical Planning. December 26, 2014 Orders re: Dismissals copy attached

Because the denial of the Motion to Dismiss SaveHywd was

based solely upon the void order removing Attorney MacNaughton,

the denial of the Motion to Dismiss SaveHywd was improper.

Page 3 of 29

One should note that the trial court judge, The Honorable

Allan Goodman, is now sitting by assignment in Division 5 and his

presence in Division 5 gives rise to conflict which merits discus-

sion of a significant appearance of impropriety. Not only was Judge

Goodman the trial court judge, but Justice Turner's orders were

more likely than not designed to cover-up Judge Goodman's con-

doning Frank Angel's serious ethical violations. The cover-up

resulted in Frank Angel's obtaining Two Hundred Fifty Thousand

Dollars [$250,000.00] in attorney fees to which he was not entitled.

3. Orders Without Jurisdiction and Without Due Process are Void

Three related cases from the trial court have been con-

solidated under one case number in the appellate court. The three

cases are:

(1) Fix The City, Inc. v The City of Los Angeles, et alia

LASC # BS138580 [Fix The City]

(2) La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Association of

Hollywood v. The City of Los Angeles, et alia LASC # BS 138369

[La Mirada]

(3) SaveHywd & HELP v The City of Los Angeles, LASC #

BS 138370 [SaveHywd]

Page 4 of 29

The three related cases are consolidated on appeal under case

number B257712 and they came to the appellate court when The

City appealed Judge Allan Goodman's I post judgment order gran-

ting La Mirada's motion concerning the need for the Hollywood

Community Plan to monitor infrastructure.

As the appellate court docket shows, no one had cross-

appealed to the Second District on the issue of who was the correct

party or who was the correct attorney in SaveHywd.

As the appellate court docket shows, no one had made any

motion in the appellate court to determine who was the correct

party or who was the correct attorney in SaveHywd.

Justice Turner had no jurisdiction to determine this matter.

III. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

Due to the lack of jurisdiction and lack of Due Process, there

is no record to cite except twice to The City's Appendix.

The three related cases were assigned to Judge Goodman, Department P, in Autumn 2012 and remained with Judge Goodman until he was placed on temporary assignment to the Second Appellate Dis-trict, Division 5 in October 2014.

Page 5 of 29

1 December 2011

SaveHywd is formed and in early 2012, its governing body,

The legal Committee, is formed.

2. 7-18-2012

SaveHywd retains Attorney MacNaughton who files the

CEQA Petition for SaveHywd and HELP. AA-0001 - 29

3. 8-25-2012

SaveHywd retains Frank Angel to provide supplemental

CEQA advice to Attorney MacNaughton.

4. 8-29-2012

A corporation [The Corp] is formed to be a 501(c)(3)

corporation to raise funds. Care is taken to maintain the

distinction between SaveHywd and The Corp.

5. 11-1-2012

Due to Attorney MacNaughton's cancer and other medical

conditions, SaveHywd authorizes Frank Angel to appear in

Court, but Attorney MacNaughton remains Lead Attorney.

///

Page 6 of 29

6. 9-19-2013

On or about this date, Frank Angel wants to become lead

attorney, but SaveHywd's Legal Committee rejects Frank

Angel's suggestion.

7. 9-20-2013

On or about this date, Frank Angel goes to The Corp in order

to have it make him lead attorney.

8. September 2013

SaveHywd objects orally and in writing to Frank Angel's

providing any legal advice to The Corp as his contract is with

SaveHywd. By this time, SaveHywd has discovered that

Frank Angel and The Corp do not accept the main premise of

SaveHywd's litigation, i.e., The City needs to study a CEQA

alternative consistent with Hollywood's 20 year population

decline.

9. September 2013

. Frank Angel disregards the express instructions of SaveHywd

for him not to file any papers with the trial court.

///

Page 7 of 29

10. September, October, November, December 2013

Attorney MacNaughton repeatedly explains to The Corp and

Frank Angel that The Corp is not the petitioner and that The

Corp never superseded SaveHywd and that Attorney Mac

Naughton's contract is with SaveHywd and not with The

Corp.

11. 9-29-2013

Over SaveHywd's objections, Frank Angel enters into a

contract with The Corp while still under contract to Save-

Hywd.

12. October 2013

Frank Angel has The Corp remove Attorney MacNaughton as

its lead attorney and The Corp orders Attorney MacNaughton

to follow only the directions of Frank Angel.

13. 1-5-2014

Frank Angel has The Corp fire Attorney MacNaughton.

14. 1-16-2014

Pretending to represent SaveHywd, Frank Angel files a

motion in Dept P to disqualify Attorney MacNaughton.

Frank Angels' moving and reply papers show that Frank

Page 8 of 29

Angel is asking the court to remove SaveHywd from its own

litigation as well as to disqualify Attorney MacNaughton as

SaveHywd's Attorney.

15. 1-29-2014

Frank Angel files Reply Brief in Dept P admitting that he is

representing The Corp. Frank Angel presents declarations

which state that SaveHywd ceased to exist the day The Corp

was formed, 8-25-2012.

16. 1-31-2013

Judge Goodman sees that Frank Angel is violating California

Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-310(C) and Flatt v

Superior (Daniels) (1994) 9 Ca1.4th 275, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537,

which holds that an attorney who has undertaken dual

representation may not even appear in court representing the

second client over the objections of his first client. Judge

Goodman advises Frank Angel of the steps he needs to take

in order to remove petitioner SaveHywd from its own case.

The change in petitioner would result in The Corp being able

to make Frank Angel its lead attorney. Judge Goodman

continues the Motion to March 7, 2014. When Judge Good-

man had a duty to tell Frank Angel to stop, he told him to

advance.

Page 9 of 29

17. 2-14-2014

SaveHywd terminates Frank Angel's contract due his

violations of Rule 3-310(C) and Flatt and due to his dis-

closing SaveHywd's confidential documents and Attorney

MacNaughton's Attorney Work Product.

18. February 2014

After pretending for months that SaveHywd and its Legal

Committee did not exist after The Corp was formed, Frank

Angel now contradictorily claims that The Corp's Board is

the Legal Committee.

19. 2-20-2014

Frank Angel realizes that he lacks a single fact to support his

claim that The Corp superseded SaveHywd and he submits a

request that the court dismisses his Motion to disqualify

Attorney MacNaughton.

20. 3-3-2014

When the court does not dismiss the Motion, Frank Angel

tells Department P that he was mistaken about The Corp's

superseding SaveHywd. Judge Goodman overlooks Frank

Angel's admission that he has been violating Rule 3-310(C)

and Flatt for months.

Page 10 of 29

21. 3-7-2014

Judge Goodman holds a hearing on SaveHywd's motion for

the court to order Frank Angel to cease filing documents as

SaveHywd fired Frank Angel on February 14, 2014 due to his

months of Flatt violations. Judge Goodman ridicules

Attorney MacNaughton when he complains that Frank Angel

has been disclosing to the court and opposing party Save-

Hywd's confidential papers and Attorney MacNaughton's

absolutely privileged thoughts and impressions of Judge

Goodman.

22. 3-25-2014

Judge Goodman denies SaveHywd's Motion to have Frank

Angel cease to file papers in the case and he denies it "with

prejudice" which prevents SaveHywd from bringing up the

on-going violations of Rule 3-310(C) and Flatt. Judge

Goodman's ruling operates as a cover-up of Frank Angel's

wrongdoing and allows Frank Angel to continue with his

ethical transgressions.

23. 3-27-2014

Judge Goodman signs an order allowing Frank Angel to

submit his attorney fee bills to Respondent City notwith-

standing The Flatt case which says that this type of violation

Page 11 of 29

of the attorney's duty of loyalty automatically disqualifies

him and the errant lawyer may not collect attorney fees.

24. 6-12-2014

On or around June 12, 2014, The City pays Frank Angel

$250,000.00 for attorney fees. Judge Goodman's cover-up of

Frank Angel's misconduct leaves The City no option but to

pay the $250,000.00.

25. 6-20-2014

Judge Goodman holds a hearing on La Mirada's motion that

the Hollywood Community Plan must contain a Monitoring

element. Savellywd and HELP played no role in this motion.

26. 7-7-2014

In the trial court, Dept P, Attorney MacNaughton files a

motion, seeking an order from Judge Goodman that the City

needs to issue a CEQA Notice of Preparation [NOP] for the

Draft Environment Impact Report [DEIR]. The hearing date

was September 18, 2014.

27. 7-14-2014

Judge Goodman sustains La Mirada's motion.

Page 12 of 29

28. 7-23-2014

The City appeals from Judge Goodman's 7-14-2014 Order

and adds SaveHywd and HELP to its appeal. AA-0881-887

29. 9-18-2014

In Department P, Frank Angel objects to Attorney Mac

Naughton's acting on behalf of SaveHywd on the grounds

that the court had removed Attorney MacNaughton by its

March 25, 2014 order.

30. 9-18-2014

Judge Goodman puts on the record his understanding of the

situation, to wit, Frank Angel represents The Corp, which has

been trying to replace SaveHywd in this litigation, and that

Attorney MacNaughton represents only SaveHywd and he

does not represent The Corp. Judge Goodman starts to dis-

qualify Attorney MacNaughton under the belief that Frank

Angel had somehow managed to supplant SaveHywd with

The Corp. Judge Goodman's statements show that he clearly

understands that Frank Angel has been violating Rule 3-

310(C) and Flatt's duty of loyalty.

Attorney MacNaughton objects to his imminent disqualifi-

Page 13 of 29

cation on the grounds of lack of due process, and Judge

Goodman continues the hearing until September 24, 2014.

31. 9-24-2014

Judge Goodman discovers that The Corp has not replaced

SaveHywd and that there is no basis to remove Attorney

MacNaughton or to remove SaveHywd from its own litiga-

tion in favor of Frank Angel's client, The Corp. Despite the

fact that by his own words on September 18, 2014, Frank

Angel is in flagrant violation of Flatt, Judge Goodman again

allows Frank Angel to continue his breach of Rule 3-310(C)

and Flatt's duty of loyalty causing harm to SaveHywd.

32. 10-1-2014

The appellate court consolidates the three related cases under

the lowest case number, Fix The City, with the appellate #

B257712.

33. 11-12-14

In Division 5 Attorney MacNaughton files a motion for Save-

Hywd and HELP to be dismissed from the appeals as they are

not proper Respondents.

///

Page 14 of 29

34. 11-20-14

The City files its response brief in opposition to SaveHywd's

and HELP's motion to be dismissed.

Frank Angel files no opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

Thus, there was no need for Justice Turner's order removing

Attorney MacNaughton. This fact is seen from the docket

itself. As explained below, if Justice Turner had dismissed

SaveHywd, it would have been free to make a trial court

record about Judge Goodman's prior cover-up of Frank

Angel's ethical breaches.

35. 12-8-2014

In the trial court Dept G, before Judge Torriobio, Frank Angel

files a Code of Civil Procedure, § 128.7 Motion against

Attorney MacNaughton seeking $27,600.00 on the grounds

that Attorney MacNaughton is not SaveHywd's attorney.

This motion allows Attorney MacNaughton to bring to the

trial court's attention Judge Good-man's continual cover-up

of Frank Angel's persistent violation of Rule 3-310(C) and

Flatt 's duty of loyalty as well as Judge Goodman's ridiculing

Attorney MacNaughton for objecting to Frank Angel's dis-

closure of SaveHywd's confidential documents including

Attorney MacNaughton's assessment of Judge Goodman.

Page 15 of 29

the trial court's attention the fact that Judge Goodman clearly

understood that he was covering up Frank Angel's breach of

loyalty which allowed Frank Angel to obtain $250,000.00 in

attorney fees to which Frank Angel was not entitled.

36. 12-18-14

In the appeals court, Frank Angel's response brief to The

City's opening brief requests that SaveHywd be dismissed

from the appeal on the exact same grounds as Attorney

MacNaughton's Motion had sought dismissal.

37. 12-19-14

Justice Turner orders plaintiff SaveHywd to send directly to

him declarations identifying who it wishes to be its attorney.

Justice Turner does not make a motion as to this issue. Copy

attached

38. 12-22-14

Division 5 advises SaveHywd that Justice Turner only wants

a declaration directly from SaveHywd without any exhibits

and its attorney is to file nothing. Division 5 states that if two

attorneys are identified, then Justice Turner will ask for more

information. Kruse 12-30-14 Decl. Attached

Page 16 of 29

39. 12-22-14

SaveHywd files a two page declaration with no exhibits, and

Attorney MacNaughton follows the court's instructions and

files nothing. Justice Turner accepts SveHywd's two page

declaration. Kruse 12-30-14 Decl. Attached

40. 12-23-14

Frank Angel files an attorney statement, four declarations,

and over 60 pages of exhibits. Justice Turner accepts these

documents.

41. 12-26-14

Justice Turner rules, with no explanation, that Attorney

MacNaughton is not SaveHywd's attorney and that Frank

Angel is its attorney. Justice Turner makes his order before

SaveHywd sees the papers which Frank Angel had submitted

and before SaveHywd has any idea that Justice Turner would

be issuing any ruling.

This order, which had neither jurisdiction nor due process,

covers up Judge Goodman's prior cover-up by making

certain there is no record. By removing Attorney Mac

Naughton, Justice Turner precludes his making any new

motion on behalf of his client SaveHywd.

Page 17 of 29

42. 12-31-14

Following Justice Turner's December 19th order, SaveHywd

files Objections to the December 26th order removing

Attorney MacNaughton and its being removed from its own

litigation. Face sheet attached

43. 12-31-14

Justice Turner rejects the filing as SaveHywd submitted it in

its own name on the grounds that now SaveHywd may not

communicate directly with him. Copy attached

44. 1-8-15

SaveHywd's appearance attorney Edward W. Pilot, Esq. files

the Objections/Appeal and seeks a Writ of Supersedeas in

order to stay the December 26, 2014 order, removing

Attorney MacNaughton. Face sheets attached

45. 1-8-15

Justice Turner denies the Stay without mention of the Objec-

tions/Appeal. Copy attached

46. 1-16-15

The three justice panel denies the request for a stay without

mention of the Objections/Appeal. Division 5 appears to

Page 18 of 29

have surreptitiously mis-classified The Objections/Appeal as

a "supporting document" to the Petition for Writ of Super-

sedeas. Copy attached

The denial of the writ allows Frank Angel to bring Justice

Turner's order removing Attorney MacNaughton to Judge

Torribio and to argue that because Justice Turner has

removed Attorney MacNaughton, all that is left to decide is

the amount of the monetary sanctions against Attorney Mac

Naughton under C.C.P., § 128.7.

In brief, there is no appellate court jurisdiction, no Due

Process and no record to support Justice Turner's order removing

Attorney MacNaughton.

IV. DISCUSSION

1. Judges and Justices May Not Act Without Jurisdiction

No concept is more fundamental to the American judicial

system than a court may act if and only if it has jurisdiction.

"No judgment of a court is due process of law, if rendered without jurisdiction in the court, or without notice to the party." Scott v. McNeal,154 U. S. 34, 46, 154 U. S. 46 (1893).

Page 19 of 29

An appellate court gains jurisdiction of an issue either by

having the issue appealed to the appeals court or by a party or the

court itself making a motion to determine the issue. Cal. Const. Art.

VI, § 10

There is no gainsaying that SaveHywd and HELP had not

appealed any order from the trial court.

Nor was any motion made in the appellate court. The

situation in the appeals court is somewhat worse than proceeding

without any motion in that Justice Turner would not allow Save-

Hywd or Attorney MacNaughton to present evidence while it

allowed Frank Angel to submit his own attorney statement and over

60 pages of exhibits.

2. Due Process is a Constitutional Right

Had Justice Turner provided any notice of his intention, then

the appellate court could not have gone down this path. SaveHywd

would have been able to advise the court that it lacked jurisdiction

until someone made a motion.

Engrained in our concept of due process is the requirement of notice. Notice is sometimes essential so that the citizen has the chance to defend charges. Notice is required before property interests are disturbed,

Page 20 of 29

before assessments are made, before penalties are assessed. Notice is required in a myriad of situations where a penalty or forfeiture might be suffered for mere failure to act. Recent cases illustrating the point are Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313; Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U. S. 141; Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U. S. 112. These cases involved only property interests in civil litigation. Lambert v California, (1957) 355 U.S. 225, 228, [78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228]

Due Process is a constitutional right which no court may

ignore.

. . . Many controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the Due Process Clause, but there can be no doubt that, at a minimum, they require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., (1950) 339 U. S. 306, 313

3. An Attorney's Thoughts and Impressions are Absolutely Privileged

California affords the work product protection to any docu-

ment prepared by an attorney in connection with his or her work as

an attorney, regardless of whether litigation is contemplated. Rumac

v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810, 815.

Page 21 of 29

In order not to lose the privilege, attorneys have to object to

unauthorized disclosures. BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior

Court (1988) 199 Cal.App. 3d 1240,1261, 245 Cal.Rptr. 682 When

Attorney MacNaughton did that, Judge Goodman brushed it aside

despite the fact that the case could continue for months or years in

front of Judge Goodman and that it had been disclosed to opposing

counsel.

4. An Explanation Why Justice Turner Acted Without Jurisdiction Is Discernable

The above History and Procedure provide an explanation why

Justice Turner proceeded without jurisdiction. In order to cover-up

Judge Goodman's cover-up of Frank Angel's sustained ethical

violations, Justice Turner could not make a motion. As soon as he

would have made a motion in order to invoke the appellate court

jurisdiction, Due Process would have permitted Attorney Mac

Naughton to make a record in the appellate court revealing Judge

Goodman's prior transgressions.

5. Power Corrupts, and Corruption Destroys Institutions

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Dalberg-Acton, April 1887 letter to Mandell Creighton

Page 22 of 29

The Declaration of Independence rests upon the principle that

all men have certain inalienable rights including Life, Liberty and

the Pursuit of Happiness and that governments are instituted to

protect these inalienable rights. 2

The US Constitution was drafted to "secure the Blessings of

Liberty" and to secure these blessings, the Constitution established

a government of limited powers where the three branches of

government balance each other. Amendments 5 and 14 requires

Due Process and Amendment 14 makes Due Process applicable to

The States ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,

or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." US

Constitution 14`" Amendment)

The Sin Qua Non of the judiciary is jurisdiction. Without

jurisdiction any judicial action, decision or opinion is void. Scott

v. McNeal,154 U. S. 34, 46, 154 U. S. 46 (1893)

2

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence 1776

Page 23 of 29

As Lord Acton wrote, men of authority are the ones who need

to be constrained. They have both the passion and the ability to

harm their fellow citizens. In fact, unbridled power results in

despotism and de-legitimizes the entire government. Our Founding

Father knew that the blessings of liberty can only be secured by

limiting authority. The courts are limited by the requirements of

jurisdiction and Due Process.

The Judiciary may do nothing unless it first has jurisdiction,

and after that, the judiciary may only travel down the path of Due

Process. To allow otherwise, discredits the entire government and

moves society back towards the state of nature, which is "solitary,

poor, nasty, brutish, and short." The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes

1651

V. CEQA AUTHORIZES RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

CEQA permits recovery of attorney fees and costs under Code

of Civil Procedure, § 1021.5. In addition to the judicial attacks

which are being made upon SaveHywd and Attorney MacNaughton,

the judicial misconduct has seriously impacted the general public.

Judge Goodman's condoning of Frank Angel's transgressions has

deprived Angelenos of a Notice of Preparation for a new CEQA

Page 24 of 29

environmental impact report for the new Hollywood Community

Plan.

In order to comprehend the harm which has been done to the

public, one needs to understand the complexities of CEQA as

applied to the Hollywood Community Plan. As Justice Turner did

not allow for a record, explaining the harm is far beyond the scope

of this Petition. Rather, Save-Hywd merely states that Angelenos

have to rely on the 1988 Hollywood Community Plan, whose

Commerce Section expired in 2010. 3

The fact that Frank Angel with the assistance of Judge Good-

man has subjected SaveHywd and Attorney MacNaughton to

continual harassment as they fight for a new Hollywood Com-

munity Plan is no reason to deny SaveHywd and Attorney Mac

Naughton their attorney fees and costs.

VI. SUMMARY

Frank Angel's long term breaches of Rule 3-310(C) and ofhis

duty of loyalty to his original client, and his dissemination of his

3

While this thorny CEQA issue is not before this Court at this time, over a billion dollars worth of projects have been cast into this no man's land.

Page 25 of 29

client's confidential papers strike at the foundation of the attorney

client relationship.

Nonetheless, Judge Goodman covered up Frank Angel's

reprehensible actions, thereby allowing him to collect $250,000.00

in attorney fees when he was entitled to no attorney fees under

Flatt. Justice Turner then manipulated the appellate process which

covered up Judge Goodman's prior cover-up. 4

When the three justice panel saw that Justice Turner had acted

without jurisdiction, without Due Process and without a record, they

held fast to the rules of Omerta by ratifying the unethical behavior.

Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen said the judges' questions and tone showed they had lost patience with California courts. "State judges are supposed to refer errant lawyers, including prosecutors, to the state bar for discipline, but they rarely do," Uelmen said. January 31, 2015 LA Times, U.S. Judges See 'Epidemic' of Prosecutorial Miscon-duct in State, by Maura Dolan

4

Interestingly, while Judge Goodman has a claim he was acting with jurisdiction and hence with judicial immunity, Justice Turner's intentionally acting outside the bounds of jurisdiction probably waived judicial immunity for his conduct.

Page 26 of 29

Had Judge Goodman not chosen to cover-up Frank Angel's

errant ways, allowing Frank Angel could collect $250,000.00 in

unearned attorney fees, there would have been no need for this

Petition for Review.

VII. CONCLUSION

SaveHywd and Attorney MacNaughton respectfully request:

1. The Unacceptable Remedy

The remedy is not for this Court to subject SaveHywd and

Attorney MacNaughton to additional expense and mental distress

as it maneuvers to perpetuate the cover-ups by ordering a "re-

hearing" in an appellate court which is so implicated in wrong-

doing.

2. Proper Remedies With Respect to This Case

A. Justice Turner's December 26, 2014 order making

Frank Angel SaveHywd's attorney and removing Attorney Mac

Naughton should be declared null and void as without jurisdiction.

Page 27 of 29

B. Attorney MacNaughton's Motion to Dismiss should be

granted as to SaveHywd in addition to granting it as to HELP.

Remedies A and B can be granted by this Court's looking at

the appellate court's docket. There was neither an appeal nor a

motion on the pivotal issue, and hence, there was no jurisdiction.

C. As this is a CEQA action with Code of Civil Procedure,

§ 1021.5 Attorney fees and costs, SaveHywd and Attorney Mac

Naughton should be awarded attorney fees and costs subject to a

submission of attorney fees and costs incurred since December 19,

2014.

3. Additional Actions Which Need to Occur Beyond the Scope of this Particular Litigation

A. Due to the systemic judicial corruption, the Supreme

Court needs to take additional steps beyond the bounds of this case

in order to institute new procedures where this type of judicial

misconduct is excised from California.

B. The Governor needs to appoint new judges and justices

who are committed, in advance to their appointment, to a judiciary

which has no room for the current Omerta rules under which

judicial corruption thrives.

Page 28 of 29

Dated: February 3, 2015 Edward W. Pilot, Esq. A Professional Corporation Appearance Attorney for SaveHywd and Richard MacNaughton, E . In pro per

By CS".VIA—C

Richard MacNaughton

HCP-1112-PetitionVer16 Word count 4451

Page 29 of 29

List of Attachments To Petition For Review

1. December 26, 2014 Justice Paul Turner's Order Concerning Representation

2. December 26, 2014 Justice Paul Turner's Orders re: Dismissal

3. December 19, 2014 Justice Turner's Order re: Dispute over the Authority to Represent Plaintiff, Savehollywood.org

4. December 31, 2014 face sheet for SaveHywd's Objections to Court's December 26, 2014 Orders removing Richard MacNaughton, Esq. as its Attorney

5. December 31, 2014 Justice Turner's Order Denying Per-mission to File Objections

6. January 8, 2015 Justice Paul Turner's Order on Request for Emergency Stay

7. January 16, 2015 three Justice Panel Order Denying Writ of Supersedeas

8. December 30, 2014 Ziggy Kruse declaration re instructions from Division 5 re December 19, 2014 order

1• 12-26-2014

Order

1• 12-26-2014

Order

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL — SECOND DIST.

DIVISION FIVE

F LE Dec 26, 2014 JOSEPH A. LANE, Clerk

J. DUNN Deputy Clerk

B257712

(Super. Ct. No. BS138580) Los Angeles County

ORDER CONCERNING REPRESNTATION

FIX THE CITY et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Intervenor

The court finds the law firm of Angel Law is the only firm authorized to represent

plaintiff, SaveHollywood.Org. Mr. MacNaughton is to file no further papers as counsel

for SaveHollywood.Org.

Presiding Justice

2• 12-26-2014

Order

2• 12-26-2014

Order

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL — SECOND DIST.

DIVISION FIVE

Dec 26, 2014 JOSEPH A. LANE, Clerk

B257712 J. DUNN Deputy Clerk

(Super. Ct. No. BS138580, Los Angeles County)

ORDERS RE: DISMISSAL

FIX THE CITY et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Intervenor

The dismissal motion by plaintiff, Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning

is granted. The dismissal motion of plaintiff, Save Hollywood.Org, filed by Richard S.

MacNaughton is denied. Mr. MacNaughton has no authority to file such a motion on

behalf of Save Hollywood.Org. No costs in favor of any party are awarded as to

Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning.

Presiding Justice

3: 12-19-2014

Order

3• 12-19-2014

Order

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL — SECOND DIST.

FILE

DIVISION FIVE

Dec 19, 2014 FIX THE CITY et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,

Defendants and Appellants,

HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

Intervener.

B257712

JOSEPH A. LANE, Clerk

D. LEE

Deputy Clerk

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS138580 )

ORDER RE: DISPUTE OVER THE AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT PLAINTIFF, SAVEHOLLYWOOD.ORG

A dispute exists as to who represents plaintiff, SAVEHOLLYWOOD.ORG.

Within 5 days of the filing date of this order, plaintiff is file declarations identifying who

it wishes to act as its counsel.

Paul Turner, Presiding Justice

4• 12-31-2014 Face Sheet

4• 12-31-2014 Face Sheet

CLERK '5 OFFICE COURT Of APPEAL SECOND GIST.

RECEIVED

Court of Appeals 20140EC 31 AN11: 50 State of California JOSEPH A. LANE CLERK

Second Appellate District, Division Five

Fix the City, Inc. ) Petitioner and Respondent )

vs. ) City of Los Angeles, etc. )

Respondent and Appellant ) )

) La Mirada )

Petitioner and Respondent ) vs. ) City of Los Angeles, etc. )

Respondent and Appellant ) )

) SaveHollywood.org and Holly- ) woodians Encouraging Logical ) Planning )

Petitioners and Respondents ) )

vs ) City of Los Angeles, etc. )

Respondent and Appellant ) ) Intervenor ) Hollywood Chamber of Commerce) )

B257712 (consolidated with B257714 and B257797

Super. Ct. L.A. County, Nos. BS 138580, BS138370, BS 138369, Honorable Judge Goodman Presiding

PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT SAVE-HOLLYWOOD.ORG, PEOPLE FOR LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES, AN UNINCOR-PORATED ASSOCIATION'S OBJECTIONS TO THE COURT'S DECEMBER 26, 2014 ORDERS REMOVING RICHARD Mac NAUGHTON, ESQ. AS ITS ATTORNEY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, DECLARATION OF SIEGLINDE KRUSE

Submitted by The Legal Committee of

Petitioner SaveHollywood.Org, People for Liveable Communities, an unincorporated association 1941 North Oxford Avenue

Hollywood, California 90027 323/388-5553 (tel) 323/464-7066 (fax)

HWOODCA®gmail.com Appearing in Pro Per

5• 12-31-2014

Order

5• 12-31-2014

Order

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL — SECOND DIST.

DIVISION FIVE FILE Dec 31, 2014 JOSEPH A. LANE, Clerk

B257712 D. LEE Deputy Clerk

(Super. Ct. No. BS138580) Los Angeles County

ORDER DENYING PERMISSION TO FILE OBJECTIONS

FIX THE CITY et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Intervenor

The request of SaveHollywood.Org., People For Liveable Communities, to file

objections to this court's December 26, 2014 order is denied. It may appear only through

counsel. (Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council (1993) 505

U.S. 194, 202; Licht v. America West (In re America West Airlines) (9th Cir. 1994) 40

F.3d 1058, 1059; Harrison v. Wahatoyas, LLC (10th Cir. 2001) 253 F.3d 552, 556; see

Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Ca1.3d 724, 730; J W. v.

Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.)

Paul Turner, Presiding Justice

6• 01-08-2015

Order

6• 01-08-2015

Order

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DIST.

Fl E 111"

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DIVISION FIVE Jan 08, 2015 JOSEPH A. LANE, Clerk

Melvin E. Ashmon Deputy Clerk

FIX THE CITY, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Intervenor.

B257712

(Super. Ct. No. BS138580) Los Angeles County

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY STAY

The emergency stay request is denied.

Paul Turner, Presiding Justice

1

7• 01-16-2015

Order

7• 01-16-2015

Order

TURNER, P.J. MOSK, J.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

B257712

(Super. Ct. No. BS138580)

(Allan J. Goodman, Judge)

ORDER

COURT OF APPEAL - SECOND DIST.

IP 11 If4.; D JAN 14 21)15

JOSEPH A. LANE Clout

J. DUNN (*Pay Clerk

FIX THE CITY, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

Defendant and Appellant.

HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

Intervenor.

THE COURT:

The court has read and considered applicants SaveHollyywood.org and

Richard MacNaughton's petition for supersedeas or stay order filed January 8,

2015. The petition is denied.

1

8• 12-30-2014

Kruse Declaration re. Instructions from Division 5

8• 12-30-2014

Kruse Declaration re. Instructions from Division 5

DECLARATION OF SIEGLINDE "ZIGGY" KRUSE

I, Sieglinde "Ziggy" Kruse, declare that the following declaration is true of

my own personal knowledge.

1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and I am a resident of the County

of Los Angeles, State of California.

2. On Monday, December 22, 2014, I personally telephoned and spoke

with Deborah Lee, the Clerk of the Court of Appeal, State of California, Second

Appellate District, Division Five.

3. I contacted the Clerk in order to verify some formatting and technical

requirements for Mr. MacNaughton in responding to the December 19, 2014 Order

issued by Justice Turner.

4. I was trying to find out the color of the cover page when responding

to an order, page limits and how to handle exhibits which were not part of there

cord on appeal; many exhibits would be required to respond to the court's order.

5. While I was speaking with Ms. Lee, she informed me that she is very

familiar with the case and that we should "read the Court's order very carefully."

6. Ms. Lee pointed out to me that the court only wanted a short

declaration from the "plaintiff SAVEHOLLYWOOD.ORG" itself and that said

Page 1 of 3

declaration should not be submitted by the Attorney. The signed declaration was

to be filed by the Plaintiff and said declaration did not need any exhibits or many

words. She said that the declaration could be a few sentences with proof of

service and a cover page.

7. I thanked her and immediately informed Mr. MacNaughton about the

conversation.

8. Mr. MacNaughton asked me to call her back to double check in order

to make certain that indeed the client and not the attorney was to respond directly

to Justice Turner and that exhibits were not wanted.

9. I called the Clerk's office and again spoke with Ms. Lee.

10. She reaffirmed that all that was needed to be filed was the signed

declaration by plaintiff SAVEHOLLYWOOD.ORG with the necessary "Under

Penalty of Perjury" clause included as well as the Proof of Service.

11. She also stated that the Court would not accept and perhaps reject any

additional documents accompanying the signed declaration. I told her that the

court would then receive two declarations naming different attorneys. She said that

would be fine; if the Court needed more information it would request it.

12. I immediately informed Mr. MacNaughton about the conversation.

Page 2 of 3

13. Based on the information provided by the Court Clerk, I told Mr.

MacNaughton that she had confirmed that he was to submit nothing and only a

brief declaration directly from SaveHywd would be acceptable. As all members of

SaveHywd's Legal Committee were present in order to finish the memoranda,

exhibits and declarations with an expected submission date late December 23"1 or

early December 24th, we dropped our efforts to make a substantial submission, but

instead we drastically cut down Robert Blue's declaration to conform to the

Court's directions.

14. As a member of SaveHywd's Legal Committee, I electronically filed

the Robert Blue declaration with the Court, and I served it on all parties by e-mail

and by US mail. From the post office, Robert Blue and I then drove downtown to

the Court of Appeals where I hand delivered the original and three (3) copies of

the declaration to the Clerk. Ms. Lee was not present when we hand-delivered the

declaration to the Clerk's Office.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration consisting

of three (3) pages including this signature page is true and correct. Executed on

December, 30, 2014, at Hollywood, California.

t <1-LI turu.

Sieainde "Ziggy" Kruse

Page 3 of 3

Verification of Word Count

The Petition for Review was composed on WordPerfect and

according the WordPerfect's Word Count, the Petition itself has

4,448 words.

February 3, 2015 Richard MacNaughton

Proof of Service By Email and US MAIL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California and I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and I am not a party to this within action. My business address is 1916 North Saint Andrews Place, Hollywood, CA 90068

On February 3, 2015, I served the following documents:

1. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECEMBER 2014 APPELLATE ORDERS

on all interested parties by Mailing via US mail and/or Emailing a true and correct copy as indicated below:

see attached list

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Hollywood, California on February 3, 2015

/- u.c112 Sie Inde Kruse

The Honorable Justice Paul Turner Second Appellate District, Division 5 300 South Spring Street 2nd Floor North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90013

The Honorable John Torribio Los Angeles Superior Court Department G 12720 Norwalk Boulevard Norwalk, CA 900650

The Honorable Judge Allan Goodman Second Appellate District Division 5 300 South Spring Street 2nd Floor North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90013

Michael Bostrom, Esq. Siegmund Shyu, Deputy City Attorney 200North Main Street, 701 City Hall East Los Angeles, California 90012-4131

Edward Klein, Esq. Liner LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503

Robert P. Silverstein, Esq. 215 North Marengo Avenue, 3 rd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101-1504

Beverly Grossman Palmer STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90024

Email: Michael.Bostrom@lacity.org Email: Siegmund.Shyu@lacity.org Telephone: (213) 978-8231, 213/978-8106 Facsimile: (213) 978-8090

E-mail: eklein@linerlaw.com

Email: Robert@robertsilversteinlaw.com Phone: 626/449-4200 Facsimile No.: (626) 449-4205

E-mail: bpalmer strumwooch.com Telephone: (310) 576-1233 Facsimile: (310) 319-0156

Angel Law

Attorneys for Savehollywoodorg, a California Corporation Frank P. Angel, Esq. Email: fangel@angellaw.com Jessica Cheng, Esq. Email: jcheng@angellaw.com 2601 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 205 Santa Monica, CA 90405