In the Supreme Court of California Appeal of False, Fake Vexatious Litigant Order by Corrupt...

Jose Castaneda,

P. O. Box 947,Pasadena, CA 91102

(626)417-4433

IN SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE CASTANEDA, an individual,and on behalf of the People of TheState of California similarly situated,

as they continued to be abused by theLos Angeles Superior Court Systemand its corrupt Judges! e.g. DeVanon,Miller, & Drewry (Requesting WhisteBlower status, protection, and rewardbylaw

Plaintiff,

Vs.

THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT,

Real Party in Interest:JUDGE PHILLIP H HICKOK, Et AI,

Defendants.

CASE NO :

1)APPEAL OF CASE FROM AN ORDEROF 3/28/2009 HEARING OF JUDGEHICKOCK "FINDING" PLAINTIFF A"VEXATIOUS LITIGANT" AS THE

COURT ACCEPTS FAKE, FALSE,AND MANUFACTURE EVIDENCE BY

DEFENDANTS OVERTON, MERCADOCONWAY, RYKOFF, CONWAY ANDMACCARLEY WITH CASES YS017992, & GC 0397432)IN ADDITION A CONSPIRACY TOMANIPULATE PROCEEDINGS BY

"FORCE" & THREAT ("Say One More

Word ..?) AS TOLD TO MY WITNES1

WHO HAD KNOWLEDGE AND HAOBTAINED CASE EVIDENCE TO

~~OVEFRAUD jl

ATTORNEYS HAD "KNOWLEDGE'OF SAME "VL" PETITION TO THECOURT OF APPEALS IN MAY, 2011WHICH WAS DENIED, DEFENDANWENT FORUM SHOPPING Purs. to

GEDDES J': SUPERIOR COURT (2005

I QUESTION PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES:

WHETHER Judge Phillip Hickok, in his Order of March 28,2012, overruled a priordecision of the Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of May 15, 2011 in case B224549, "fmding" Jose Castaneda a "Vexatious Litigant" with false cases, as AttorneysPaz, and Mercado with "Joiners" by Sarah Lee Overton, Stephen Rykoff, Jack Conwayland Lisa Marie MacCarley violate the same laws they were sworn to uphold as officers of

the court. This creates new case law in California, where decisions are for sale in the

Superior court, due to bribes apparently taken by Judges such as Hickok and De V anon!

APPEAL FROMA CORRUPT"VL" ORDEROF3/28/2012 HEARING BY JUDGEHICKOK

II THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 391, subsection (b) defines a "VL", a

"Vexatious Litigant as a person who does any of the following:

"(l) in the immediately preceding 7year period, has commenced, prosecuted or maintained at

least 5 litigations (other than small claims) which have been finally determined adversely or

unjustifiably been permitted to remain pendingfor at least 2 years without having been brought

to trial, hearing, or"

"(2) after afinal determination, repeatedly re-litigates, in pro per, either the validity of the

determination against the same defendants or the same claims finally determined, or"

"(3) in any litigation while appearing in pro per, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions and

pleadings, or engages in other frivolous acts. "

Be advised, The Court of Appeals in the appeal B 223549 for case BC 402096, DENIED

the Motion submitted by Attorney Sam paz and Sonia Mercado with TEN different cases.

The Court of Appeals was presented with undisputable evidence that I, the Plaintiff in

Case BC 466737, DO NOT FIT the criteria for be label a Vexatious Litigant! IT'S A LIE.

Appellant, Jose Castaneda submit to the Honorable Supreme Court, and requests that this

court take Judicial Notice of Exhibit 1, "the Order" of March 28,2012, On Page 1, and 2,

specifically Page 1, Last Paragraph that reads:

"The Court takes ;udicial notice of case numbers GC 044745, GC 039743 GC 045202,

YS 017992 and GC 036176, each of which was filed bv Plaintiff JOSE CASTANEDA

and subsequentlv dismissed"

THIS IS A LIE! I NEVER filed cases YS 017992, or GC 039743. In fact, at the time of

the Hearing, as my witness, James Blume USMC Honorable, was to inform the court of

his knowledge of cases YS 017992 and GC 039743, Judge Hickok threaten him, "JUST

SAY ONE MORE WORD, ONE MORE WORD ", I then observed the Sheriff Deputy

nearing Mr. Blume who was order to shut up by the Judge. For indisputable proof of the

evidence that was not provided due to fraud, see enclosed Exhibits 14 and 15 as follows:

APPEAL FROM A CORRUPT "VL" ORDER OF 3/28/2012 HEARING BY JUDGE HICKOK

ON Exhibit 14, this Case GC 039743 was filed on March 21,2008, on behalf of Plaintiff

Haiffen Ye Lucero (AKA "Jean" Lucero) and William Lucero by attorney Vincent Vall in

Bennet from the Law Firm of Gordon, Edelstein & Krepack, located at 3580 Wilshire

Boulevard, Suite 1800, in Los Angeles, CA 90010.

EVIDENCE DOES NOT LIE!

ON Exhibit 15, This Case YS 017992 was filed on March 10, 2008 by an individual

named Jose Castaneda that lives at 5021 W. 11thStreet, in the City of Hawthorne

California 90250. I have NEVER lived in the city of Hawthorne or have NEVER been

confined to a wheelchair! I informed the Defendants of this error, and yet, they went

ahead and pursued this Motion with false and manufacture evidence which violates my

Constitutional Rights to a fair hearing. In fact, Attorneys Overton and Rykoffwere told

the facts of these exhibits prior to this hearing but decided to participate in this Judicial

Conspiracy to violate Appellant Constitutional Rights!

On Exhibit 9, Page 5, The Court of appeals decision of May 16,2011, Mercado v.

Castaneda in case B 223549, an appeal of Los Angeles County Superior court No. BC

402096, where I was sanctioned almost a million dollars due to a lie by Mercado and

Conway. In fact, this Court of Appeals confirms that either Mercado was telling the truth,

when is convenient for her cause, or Jack K. Conway was lying to Judge Rita Miller on

May 8, 2009. My own attorney conspired to find me guilty as he was informed that I was

worth millions, millions that I had somehow stolen from the Estate of Luis Castaneda.

Appellant, Jose Castaneda requests that the Honorable Supreme Court take Judicial

Notice of Exhibit 9, specifically, on Page 5, at footnotes, Second Paragraph that reads:

"We also denv Plaintiffs' request for an order findinf! defendant a vexatious litif!ant

because plaintiffs vrovide insufficient evidence for this court to determine whether

defendant is a vexatious litif!ant under section 391 of the California code of civil

vrocedure" The Justices that Participated were Kumar, J. Armonstrong, and Mosk, J.


Plaintiff moves this Supreme Court of that has Jurisdiction over this matter to reverse this

Order that was illegally granted by Judge Hickok. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

Section 391.8 (c ) which reads in part: "A Court mav vacate a prefilinJ! order and order

removal of a vexatious liti!lUnt's name from the Judicial Council's list of Vexatious

Litif!ants subiect to prefilinf! orders upon showin!! of a material chan!!e in the facts

upon which the order was !!ranted and that the ends of iustice would be served bv

vacatin!! the order. "

In addition, this Supreme Court shall take Judicial Notice of Page 7, of Exhibit 15 of

Case YS 017992, a Declaration of "Jose Castaneda", who filed this TRO on Line 3

through 7 that reads:

"Defendant said that he was !!oin!! to report the car I had bought from his as stolen

and that I would !!o to iail. He also said that I didn't know who I was messin!! with. He

also said that I was a "motherfuckin!! disabled person and a "piece ofshit'~ He also

said he was goin!! to take mv power wheel chair. He also said that I should fear for mv

life, that I would not ... "

Besides, Attorneys Samuel Richard Paz, as well as the other attorneys present at the

Hearing of March 28,2012 that fully participated in this Judicial SCAM, Rykoff,

Conway, Overton and Lisa Marie MacCar1ey have known as a fact for a long time that I

have never used a wheelchair! In fact, Attorney MacCar1ey knows that on February 22,

2010, when she purchased a decision from the dishonest Judge DeVanon in Department

"S" ("He did not contact the court", "Let me !let some", "I did not hear the obiection"

as JudJ!e De Van on denied me reoresentation in court, asked for a bribe from

$113,626.25 and bv assistin!l attornev MacCarlev at trial, this proves his true colors of

a corrupt iudf!e!), that I, Jose Castaneda walked into the court with my own two feet, and

without any wheelchair or prosthesis


Case law that supports this appeal and pursuant to the code of civil procedure 533 read:

"In any action, the court may on notice modify or dissolve an

injunction or temporary restraining order upon a showing that there

has been a material change in the facts upon which the injunction or

temporary restraining order was granted, that the law upon which the

injunction or temporary restraining order was granted has changed, orthat the ends of justice would be served by the modification or

dissolution of the injunction or temporary restraining order.H

Be advised, the ONLY change in facts, or "material change in facts" is that the Lower

Court has refused to correct or change their illegal order. In fact, the appeals Court are

part of the problem instead of being part of the solution as they continue to obstruct and

rubber stamp the actions of a group of attorneys, who were sworn to uphold the law, but

instead end up breaking it! This is a Judicial Conspiracy Purs. to C.C.P. 1714.10 ( c)

POINTS & AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFFS APPEAL

1) Holcomb v. Us. Bank Nat. Ass'n, (2005), 129 Ca1.App.4th1494,29 Cal.RptrJd 578.

S.M. v. E.P. (2010) 184 Cal. AppAth 1249 Eisendrath v. In this action the Defendants filed a

motion to have Holcomb declared a vexatious litigant, and require him to post a security. The

trial court granted the motion, and requires Holcomb to post a $10,000.00 bond before resuming

prosecution of this case. The Court of Appeals of the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three

ruled as follows:

" WE ALSO CONCLUDE THAT HOLCOMB DID NOT FIT ANY OF THE DEFINITIONS

OF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT UNDER SECTION 391. AND THEREFORE REVERSE".

2) PBA v. KPOD LTD. The court of appeals ruled as follows:

"Although section 391.7 does not absolutely exclude the "pro per" litigant from the

courts, we believe fundamental fairness requires the "vexatious litigant" brand be

erasable in appropriate circumstances" In addition:


"In the present case, we need not reach the issue of whether or not the brand of

"vexatious litigant" can be erased once applied. At a minimum, to cast off the vexatious

litigant label the court would have to find a cha1lJ!ein facts or circumstances relating to

the original determination. Kennedy failed to establish such new facts. Thus, even if it is

theoretically possible to remove the brand of vexatious litigant, Judge Gale abused his

discretion in doing so here because Kennedy failed to show a change in facts indicating a

mending of his ways or conduct to support a reversal of the original determination.

Furthermore, although we believe a prefiling order entered pursuant to section 391.7 may

be reversible under section 533 as a form of injunction, Kennedy did not make the

showing necessary for such a reversal. Kennedy failed to establish under section 533

either (a) "the ends of justice would be served" by the dissolution of the pre-filing order

or (b) there was a "material change in the facts" upon which the order was entered

"The trial court is directed to vacate Judge Gale's order reversing the previous orders

declaring Sailor Kennedy a vexatious litigant and imposing prefiling restrictions."

It is Clear that Judge Phillip H. Hickok abused his discretion by granting this Order with

false and made up cases that were never Certified, Confirmed or even verified.

It is abundantly clear that this Order was illegally pursued by Attorneys Paz, Rykoff,

Conway Overton, and MacCarley in violation of Section 9-1 Subscription and

Verification. This CCP 446 (a) personal signature is akin to the CCP 128.7 (b)

requirement that all papers filed with the court must be signed. The written law is as

follows:

"Verification, unlike the lawyer's subscription requirement, a pleading may be verified

by a party. This is a statement under penalty of perjury that the matters therein stated are

true. Verification creates special obligations affecting the verifying party-but not the

counsel of record, who has independent obligations upon signing a pleading. The

verifying party thus swears to the truth of the allegations contained in the pleading she, he

signs. CCP 446 (a)"


Verification subjects the signing party to criminal prosecution, because her signature

attests to the truth of the pleadings under penalty of perjury. Then Attorneys Paz, Rykoff,

Conway, Overton, and Lisa Marie MacCarley are violators of the same laws they were

sworn to uphold, they are dirty and not worthy of the Public Trust and title of "Officers of

the Court". They should be prosecuted for lying in a court oflaw!

IN CONCLUSION:

It is abundantly crystal clear that the Court Cases on Record have supported and will

support this Motion to Reverse the illegal Order granted by Judge Hickok on March 28,

2012, as Judge Hickok abuse his discretion. For that there had been and there always was

a "material change in the facts", per section 533 (b) that the Defendants knowingly,

wantonly, and recklessly omitted to the court of record. For proof, my witness, James

Blume, USMC, honorable, was not allowed to testify to inform the court of the

investigation of the Case YS 017992 filed in the Inglewood Courthouse. Plaintiff further

requests this court of Record to impose the appropriate sanctions under Code of Civil

Procedure 128.7 on Attorneys Samuel Richard Paz, former ACLU vicepresident, Att.

Jack K. Conway, Att. Lisa Marie MacCarley, Att. Sarah Lee Overton, and Att. Stephen

Rykoff.

Plaintiffs request to reverse Judge Hickok's Order must, and shall be granted. This Court

can vacate a ruling by a lower Judicial Officer fmding that the Plaintiff IS NOT a

Vexatious Litigant. It is proper for this Court to review a decision, wrong in this case, as

to preserve, "protect" the "integrity" of the court and to prevent forum shopping as

Attorney Paz has done in this matter, per court case on Record Geddes v. Superior Court

(2005). Attorney Paz had already submitted a Motion with the Court of Appeals, which

was denied in its entirety with different cases. The Court of Appeals Second Appellate

District ruled correctly in my favor and denied the Motion sought by Attorney paz and

Attorney Mercado.


For this reason, and for all of the above facts in this document, Plaintiff Application to

Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Name from Judicial Council list of Vexatious

Litigant shall be granted by Law, after granting an evidentiary hearing, or in the

alternative an OSC in the Presiding Judges in the Supreme Court of California

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WORD COUNT:

WORDS: 2657

VERIFICATION

LINES: 283 PARAGRAPHS: 79 PAGES: 9

State of California, county of Los Angeles, I am submitting the following document titled

as Appeal of a Case from an Order, and I have read the foregoing document and know

its contents. I am party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are

true of my own knowledge as to those matters which are stated on information and belief,

ans as to those matters, 1believe them to be true. I am a party to this action and am

authorized to make this verification for that reason.

Dated: July 25,2012 Respectfully Submitted,

( -r~~~se Castaneda

No one is above the law. especiallv those who are sworn to uphold it. Those who are

charged with enforcing the laws of the State of California must themselves

scrupulouslv obev the law. Thev must lead bv example. and that examole must be based

on principles of honestv. inteJ!ritv. credibilitv and accountabilitv.

Justice System Integrity Division of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office website!


PROOF OF SERVICE

SUPREME COURT CASE APPEAL

CASE No. JOSE CASTANEDA V. ESTATE OF R. BERKE

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18and not a party to the within action; my home address is 2304 El Sereno Avenue,Altadena, CA9l 00 I

On July 26,2012, I served the foregoing documents described as:

APPEAL OF CASE FROM AN ORDER OF 3/28/2009 HEARING OF JUDGE HICKOCK"FINDING" PLAINTIFF A "VEXATIOUS LITIGANT" AS THE COURT ACCEPTS

FAKE, FALSE, AND MANUFACTURE EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANTS OVERTON,MERCADO CONWAY, RYKOFF, CONWAY AND MACCARLEY WITH CASES YS017992, & GC 039743On the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealedenvelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Pasadena,California, addressed as follows:

1) Sarah Lee Overton Esq., 3801 University Avenue, Suite 560, Riverside, CA 92501

2) Sam Pazl Sonia Mercado, 5711 W. Slauson Avenue, # 100, Culver City, CA 90230

3) Frederick Bennet Esq., Superior Court Counsel, 111 N. Hill St. LA CA 90012

4) Stephen Rykoff, 11355 Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064

5) Lisa Marie MacCarley, 3436 N. Verdugo Rd. Glendale, CA 91208

6) Jack K. Conway, 4160 Huntington Drive, San Marino, CA 91108

(By Mail) ( X )

I deposited such envelope(s) in the mail at Pasadena, California. The envelope was

mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.

Executed on July 19,2012 at Pasadena, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

abov~ is true and correct. ..~....

Date. July 19, 2012, __ ~~,. _,,~..

Arm 0 Salgado

APPEAL FROMA CORRUPT"VL" ORDEROF3/28/2012 HEARING BYJUDGEHICKOK Page9

CASTANEDA v. ESTATE OF ROBERT BERKECASE NO.: 8C466737

HEARING: 03/28/12

At the February 21,2012 status conference in this matter, all pending motionswere continued. The Court rules as follows:

I. Defendants SONIA MERCADO and R. SAMUEL PAZ's motion for a findingthat plaintiff JOSE CASTANEDA is a vexatious litigant and to require a security isGRANTED. C.C.P. §§ 391, 391.1.

The vexatious litigant statutes (Code of Civil Procedure sections 391

through 391.7) are designed to curb misuse of the court system by those

persistent and obsessive litigants who, by repeatedly litigating the same. issues through groundless actions, waste the time and resources of the

court system and other litigants., Bravo v. Ismaj (2002) 99 Cal.AppAth 211,220-21.

Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subsection (b) defines a "vexatious litigant"as a person who does any of the following:

(1) in the immediately preceding 7 year period, has commenced, ,prosecuted or maintained at least 5 litigations (other than small claims) whichhave been finally determined adversely or unjustifiably been permitted to remainpending for at least 2 years without having been brought to trial or hearing, or

(2) after a final determination, repeatedly re-Iitigates, in pro per, either thevalidity of the determination against the same defendants or the same claimsfinally determined, or '

(3) in any litigation while appearing in pro per, repeatedly filesunmeritorious motions and pleadings, or engages in other frivolous tactics.

Plaintjff JQSE CASTANE:DA has commenced several actions, each arising out ofunderJyIng,litigation regarding his brother (Luis Castaneda) and his mother(Felicitas Castaneda) and their respective estates and the handling of thatlitigation by various attorneys. The Court takes judicial notice of case numbers8C044745 GC03974.3, 8C045202, YS017992 and GC036176, each of which.• ;.1. ,

was filed by plarhtiff JOSE CASTANDA and subsequently dismissed.

The Court also take,$judid~ notice of cert~in,9~als filed by plaintiff (casenumbers B223549,i,~22.95-6?, 8223549,(B21L82q,);195431 and S193392),which were subsequently dismissed and/or denied.

Plaintiff meets the requirements of section 391(b)(1). He also falls withinsubsections (b)(2) and (3). He is attempting, by way of this action, to re-Iitigate

. the same issues against these defendants. Moreover, the complaint itselfcontains allegations that are not actionable, and seeks relief that has alreadybeen requested and denied. See Demurrers (on file). Defendants havedemonstrated that plaintiff has no reasonable probability of prevailing (forpurposes of the subject motion).

The Court hereby deems p/aintiffJOSE CASTANEDA a vexatious litigant asdefined in section 391. Plaintiff may not file any new litigation without firstobtaining leave of court asset forth in section 391.7.

DefendEmts'request for a bond is GRANTED. C.C.P. § 391.1. Plaintiff has 30days from the hearing date, or until April 30, 2012, to post a bond in the amountof $50,000. If plaintiff fails to furnish security by that date, the action shall bedismissed. C.C.P. §391.4.

II. Plaintiff JOSE CASTANEDA's motion for sanctions based on defendants'

improper motion re: vexatious litigant is DENIED.

The 'motion appears to be an opposition to defendants' motion to deem plaintiff avexatious litigant. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his pattern of filing litigationis not frivolous or that he has a reasonable probability of prevailing.

His request for sanctions is procedurally improper in that he failed to set forth theauthority under which sanctions are sought. Additionally, he failed to state theamount sought or against whom the sanctions should be levied. On that basis,the request must be denied for lack of notice. In re Marriage of Reese &Guy (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1214. For the reasons noted above, the request forsanctions is denied on the merits as well.-

III.-X. The remaining matters on calendar include (1) plaintiff's motion toconsolidate, (2) plaintiff's petition to amend the complaint, (3)-(8) variousdemurrers. Those matters are continued to f\ fN. f) . '):11 17/ , to be heard afterplaintiff posts his bone:!. I I \ j I .

In the Supreme Court of California Appeal of False, Fake Vexatious Litigant Order by Corrupt...

Documents

Transcript of In the Supreme Court of California Appeal of False, Fake Vexatious Litigant Order by Corrupt...