#19

Robert J. Peernock >

Serving Life Sentence Without Parole

WINDOW # 19

22 Pages

'- 19)

XX1. JUDGE STOUTT--IN CONSPIRACY WITH JUDGES MAJOR,

SCHWAB, RIMERMAN, AND THE PROSECUTOR· ·TO OBSTRUCT

JUSTICE--THREATENED WITNESS SONIA SIEGEL WITH

IMPRISONMENT IF SHE TOLD THE TRUTH. JUDGE STOUlT

DIRECTED SIEGEL ;rO TAKE THE FIFTH AND NOT TESTIFY

TO THE FACT THAT APPELLANT PHONED HER AT 12:14 A.M.

AND TOLD HER THAT CLAIRE AND NATASHA HAD LEFT

THE CATALA HOUSE AT 10:30 P.M.

Judge Stout! knew, as did Major, Schwab, Rimerman, and the prosecutor, that Siegel told-- - . ----''----

Detective Fisk that Appellant phoned her at 12:14 a.m., and told her during this phone call that

Claire and Natasha left at 10:30 a.m.

This was clear, uAequivocal, reliable, exculpatory evidence which was documented in Fisk's Poi ice

Report. Fisk interviewed Sonia Siegel long before any information was released on what Natasha

spontaneously stated to the Police, both at the crash scene and when she arrived at the hospital.

Natasha told the Police that THEY LEFT THEIR CATALA HOUSE AT 10:30 P.M. before Fisk could stop

her from making these spontaneous statements. This was before Fisk isolated Natasha and then forced

her--by brainwashing (hypnosis), and by using drugs and fear--to repeat his fabricated story to

blame Appellant.

The phone records--which were also unlawfully and deliberately withheld--also proved that

Appellant phoned Sonia Siegel from the Catala house--1 hour and 44 minutes--after Claire and

Natasha left at t 0:30 p.m. (After leaving at 10:30 p.m. Claire and Natasha bought a completely full

tank of gas just before the crash at 3:30 a.m., by Fisk's office. Fisk's office and the crash scene

was 24 miles away from the Catala house.) With the gas tank completely filled, it was a fact that

I .92

Claire and Natasha bought gas in the immediate area of the crash scene just before the crash, and

five hOl,lrs after they had left at 10:30 p.m. The obvious fact also was that they had met some

guys and also had stopped at a cockt·ail lounge before buying the gas just before the crash.

Natasha also spontaneously told the Police --before there was time to fabricate--that they had

met some guys. And Natasha also told the Police that before they (Claire and Natasha) left the

Cataia house at 10:30 p.m. that she had been at her girl friend Patty's house. And the time she told

the Police that she left Patty's house was also factually, unequivocally correct, as was the time that

she said they left her house (at 10:30 p.m.) to meet some guys.

Judge Stout! knew that what Sonia Siegel told Detective Fisk on July 23, 1987, was the truth

--because it was the same thing that Natasha spontaneously told the Police before there was time

for Fisk to fabricate and establish his story. Stoutt deliberately frightened, terrorized, and threatened

Siegel with false imprisonment--to obstruct justice--and to stop her from testifying to what she told

Fisk--which was documented in Fisk's Police Report.

While Judge Stoutt threatened Siegel with imprisonment to stop her from testifying to what she

told Detective Fisk--that Claire and Natasha left at 10:30 p.m.--and directed her to take the Fifth

Amendment, Judge Major bribed defense attorney Fogelman to stop the Investigator from shoWing

photos of Claire and Natasha to the gas station attendant--to hide the fact that they bought a full

tank of gas by the crash scene and Fisk's office.

Judge Stoutt knew that in Dependency Court was Appellant's only chance to obtain Siegel's

truthful testimony because Appellant was being completely denied all his Constitutional Rights to

present any defense in the criminal case. And Stoull knew that each assigned defense attorney

was being bribed by his judge buddies to block all defense In the criminal case, and If he could stop

Siegel from testifying In this Dependency case, about what Siegel told Detective Fisk. that Appellant

would NOT be able to ask any questions in the criminal case.

Although Siegel testified about many things that took place before the 12:14 a.m. phone call, and

many things that occurred after the 12:14 a.m. phone call, Judge Stoutt told Siegel to take the Fifth

Amendment on the 12':14 a.m. phone call or she would be imprisoned again by Fisk.

This was obstruction of justice and was in violation of all case law. U.S. v. Mac Closkey, 682 F.2d

468 (4th. Cir. 1982) Prosecutor, or judge, threatens of reindictment if defense witness testified was

reversible error_Criminal Law ( Digest Code Key) 117.1 (1). And once incrimi nating facts--I n this case

exculpatory facts--are voluntarily revealed the Fifth Amendment priVilege can not be invoked to avoid

discosure of detai1s~Witness (Digest Code Key) 305(1). U.S. v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693 (5th. Cir.

1980), when a defendant's due process rights are violated by Government interference with a defense

witness' decision whether to testify, the Court must reverse, and without regard to prejudice to

defendant-Criminal Law (Digest Code Key) 268(10). Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 96,93 S.Ct. 351,

34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972), Court held that Government's action of threatening witness with imprisonment

if witness testified for the defense--although witness acquitted of previous false charges by the

Government--was prejudicial error and conviction was reversed, U.S. v. Thomas, 488 F.2d 334 (6th.

Cir. 1973), U.S. v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223 (3rd. Cir. 1976).

Sonia Siegel had no fear of testifying to what she told Detective Fisk--which was in Fisk's

Police Report--until Judge Stoutt threatened her that she would be imprisoned again by Fisk. There

was nothing incriminating or unlawful concerning what she told Fisk about the 12:14 a.m. phone call

--which was that Claire and Natasha had driven away in the Cadillac at 10:30 p.m.--and that

Appellant was staying at the Catala house. This was the same thing that Natasha spontaneously told

the Police at 5:00 a.m. at the crash scene and at the hospital before there was time for Fisk to

fabricate his frame-up.

Sonia Siegel's truthful testimony concerning the 12:14 a.m. phone call would, though. expose the

unlawful, criminal acts by Fisk and the judges to cover-up the murder by Fisk's informant.

93

Footnote continued next page

Certainly the fact that Appellant phoned Siegel at 12:14 a.m. from the Catala house--as the22.1 '

phone records proved--and told her that Claire and Na1asha had left at 10:30 p.m., and the fact that

Natasha also spontaneously told the Police about five hours later that they had left at 10:30 p.m.,

and the fact that they bought a completely full tank of gas 24 miles away from the Catala house just

before the crash at 3:30 a.m. exposed that Fisk's story was a complete lie.

Although the Adjudication Court, after four days of impeachment, dismissed all of Fisk's story

as untrue--which he forced Natasha by brainwashing to repeat after the surgery to her head--

Judge Stoutt and his buddy Judges Major, Rimerman, Schwab, etc., conspired to obstruct justice and

covered-up for the murder by Fisk and his informant (felon Dozier). Judge Stoutt knew Detective Fisk

was a psychopath who the LAPD Psychiatrists determined to be mentally ill, and, an alcoholic ana placed',into a mental illness retirement until Internal Affairs covered-up his many murders. Stoutt, as Judges

Major, Rimerman, Schwab, etc., knew that Fisk with his buddy detectives, Ford and VonVillas, were

taking out insurances on people then killing them and collecting the insurances. Judge Stoutt knew

that Dennis Nelson--as the transcripts (RT 807, 805, 806, 000447 in Dependency Court) exp~sed--was

keeping many life insurance policies on Claire in his files, although Claire no longer worked for Nelson,

and that Nelson immediately after Fisk's informant murdered Claire, by Fisk's office, sent Doom (Fisk's

former co-worker) the life policies so that Fisk, Doom, and the' judges could collect on the insurances.

22./ The Judges, in a conspiracy with the prosecutors and their bribed defense attorneys, tried towithhold and biock' every piece of exculpatory evidence they became aware of. Just a few examples:1. The pho;;er:&ords of the 12:14 a.m. phone call from the Catala house.2. Sonia Siegel's statement which was documented in Fisk's Police Report.3. Natasha's spontaneous statements to the Police before Fisk was able to stop the statements.4. The history of Fisk's mental illness, his alcoholism, and his many murders all covered-up by I.A.5. Fisk's informant's extensive arrest record, and finding by the COUrtS that he was incapable ofcontrolling his violence against women, and that he was at a previous similar type murder scene.6. Ordered that no statments; by' Natasha on or before August 3, 1987, could be presented to the jury.7. Ordered that it be kept from the jurythat Fisk's informant was~ under tbe Cadillac sabotagingthe car after the crash.8. Ordered that the fact that Appellant was 23 miles away having breakfast in a restaurant at thetime of the crash and then murder would not be presented to the jury.9. Withheld from the jury the taped statements of witness Charles Lane that with his face only12 inches from 'Claire's face he saw that she had no injuries, and no blood on her, and that there was no.rope tied under the Cadillac at 4:00 a.m. when he was at the crash scene.~Withheld from the jury that Appellant was suing Fisk and the LAPD, in case NVC2885, for rack­eteering and repeated murder attempts at the time Fisk's informant murdered Appellant's wife, byFisk's office.11. Withheld from the jury that Jud~e Schwab ruled that at the time Fisk's claimed he obtained hisstory from Natasha it was impossible for Natasha to tell Fisk anything because of the operation toher head.12. Withheld from the jury that the story that Fisk made-up and forced Natasha into repeating wascompletely impeached and dismissed as untrue at the Adjudication Trial. ,13. Destroyed the Cadillac, Claire's body, the rag found hot In the trunk, and every piece of excul­patory evidence they became aware of.14. Withheld the taped interview of Fisk's informant, felon Dozier, which exposed that the prosecutorknew felon Dozier was committing perjury and coached him to commit perjury to cover-up themurder by Dozier.

94

95

The mentally ill, alcoholic Detective Fisk to terrorize witness Sonia Siegel repeatedly smashed in

her door, and also threw her in jail for eight days. Siegel was then released from this false imprison­

ment and the charges dismissed with the agreement that she would testify to whatever the prosecutor

told her to say during the criminal trial.

At the Dependency Court, Siegel was willing to testify to the details of the t 2:14a.m. phone call

--which was documented in Detective Fisk's Police Report (this interview with Siegel was tape

recorded), and also documented as having taken place at t2:t4 a.m. on July 22, 1987, by the Tele­

phone Corrpany' s Hecord:;,. which Fisk, the prosecutors, and' judges maliciously withheld--but Judge

Stoutt threatened Siegel with a murder charge and told her to get Attorney Kenton, who Stoutt knew

would conspire with him to block this exculpatory testimony (RT 756). (See EXHIBIT "MM").

Attorney Kenton--who was conspiring with the judges and prosecutors to obstruct justice and

cover-up the murder by Fisk's iniormant--admitted on the record (RT 861) "That there was nothing

obviously before the death of Claire Peernock that would be relevant to the Penal Code § 32 charge."

Claire Peernock was murdered at 4:16 a.m. on July 22, t987, by Fisk's office (by Fisk's informant).

The 12:14 a.m. phone call was 4 hours and 2 minutes before the murder, 24 miles away from the

Catala house--and also 1 hour and 44 minutes after Claire and Natasha drove away from the Catala

at 10:30 p.m.

Judge Stoutt also admitted that Siegel already had testified to events before Claire's murder

and these questions were allowed (RT 864, L2). Appellant clearly established that questions on this

12:14 a.m. phone call were obviously NOT relevant to the charges that were dismissed against Siegel

(RT 86t, L21; as Kenton admitted on the record). Judge Stoutt and his buddy, Attorney Kenton,

though, to obstuct justice and to cover-up the murder by Fisk and his informant, maliciously blocked

and suppressed this crucial exculpatory evidence in collusion with Fisk, the prosecutors, and the judges

at the North Valley Court (RT 864, l13-19). (See EXHIBIT "MM").

Judge Stoutt, as the record clearly proves, knew that Appellant was being denied all his Sixth

Amendment Rights by the judges at the North Valley Court. Stoutt knew that Appellant would not be

allowed to ask this or any questions in the criminal case--which was being completely rigged-and

that Appellant 'had no other means to obtain this testimony from this witness.

During the criminal trial, about three years later, Siegel, as the prosecutor's witness. testified

extensiv_ely to lies that the prosecutor coached her to repeat. Siegel testified under the prosecutor's

immunity to repeat coached perjury, but was given NO immunity to tell the truth about the t 2:14 a.m.

phone call. .

22./ cont.15. Withheld the photos of Dozier's (Fisk's informant) damaged car which was damaged when it cut­off the Cadillac running it into the pole.16. Withheld the Audio Report and blocked the testimony of the Audio Expert to cover-up that thefive minute segment of the tape--by their informant Stratton--was falsified in ten places to fabricatedthe false charge' against Appellant. Not only was this a falsified tape recording, but the prosecutorand judge withheld the transcript of this falsified tape.

THIS WAS TERRORIZED, BRIBED PERJURED TESTI!tJNY AT THE "ILLEGAL" CRIMINAL TRIAL

At the criminal trial this was bought perjured testimony. The prosecutor dismissed their fabricated

charges against Siegel with the agreement that she would repeat whatever the prosecutor wanted.

And if Siegel would NOT repeat the lies then she would' be thrown in jail again. Attorney Kenton

conspired with the prosecutor to keep Siegel under the threat that the charges would be refilled

against her if she did NOT say what the prosecutor wanted (RT 861, L26). Instead of advising Siegel,.

to tell the truth--as required by law--Kenton stopped Siegel from telling the truth and withheld the

crucial exculpatory evidence--the 12:14 a.m. phone call--so they could cover-up the murder by Fisk's

informant and frame an innocent person. Kenton, on the record, admitted (RT 861, L21) he knew this

exculpatory evidence could not be covered-up by claiming the Fifth Amendment. (See EXHIBIT "MM").

Kenton stopped Siegel from testifying to this truth by using the threat. with Judge Stoutt, of.

another false imprisonment. Using this dishonest, corrupt reasoning then every witness who was

exposed to exculpatory defense evidence could be thrown in jailor threatened with being thrown in jail

to block their testimony. Kenton did not ask Siegel if she wanted to testify to the truth of ·.the

12:14 a.m. phone call--which was proven by the telephone records--but in conspiracy with Judge

Stoutt obstructed justice to block this exculpatory evidence proving the charges against Appellant

were a fabrication by Detective Fisk.

Both Stoutt and Kenton have sworn to seek the truth, not use flim-flam interpretation of the law,

and threats of imprisonment to withhold and block the truth. and obstruct justice so an innocent man

be convicted. This 12:14 a.m. phone call from the Catala house proved that Appellant remained at

the house after Claire and Natasha drove away at 10:30 a.m., as Appellant told Siegel during this call.

And this was the same time that Natasha spontaneously told the police that they had left the house

--before the mentally ill, alcoholic Detective Fisk had time to fabricate his Face Mask story.

96

756

WANT TO

WOULD CERTAINLY APPOINT AN ATTORNEY TO TALK

IF YOU WANTED TO TALK TO AN ATTORNEY BEFORE YOU

MAK= SURE I FULFILL MY DUTY BY TELLING YOU YOUR RIGHT TO

HA\'~ AN ATTORNEY HERE AND BY TELL1NG YOU THAT ANYTH1NG YOU

SAY HERE TODAY COULD POSS1BLY BE HELD AGAINST YOU IN THE

FUTL'RE.

WA~T AN ATTORNEY. THAT IS UP TO YOU TO DECIDE.

THE WITNESS: .IELL, I HAVE AN ATTORNEY, BUT HE

THE COURT: WELL, DO YOU WISH TO TESTIFY OUTSI~E

THE COURT: JUST LISTEN TO ME. IT IS MY DUTY

THE WITNESS: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THOSE ALLEGATIONS

HAVE TO WARN THEM OF THEIR RIGHT AGAINST

THE REASON I AM BRINGING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION,

ARE UNTRUE.

IS 1M COURT TODAY.

ENOUGH AT ALL TO INVOLVE YOU IN A MURDER CHARGE BUT --

IT 15 MY OUTY TO INFORM A WITNESS WHO IS UNREPRESENTED BY

OF HIS PRESENCE? I AM NOT SAYING THE EVIDENCE IS STRONG

ANYT~ING IF YOU FEEL YOU WOULD INCRIMINATE YOURSELF.

SELc-INCRIMINATJON AND TELL YOU THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY

BEEN INTIMIDAT1NG MR. PEERNOCK OR TERRORIZING HIM.

TES71FY,

AN ~7TORNEY THAT THEIR TESTIMONY MIGHT INCRIMINATE THEM.

FR0M MR. PEERNOCK THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS

TO YJU FOR THAT PURPOSE.

25

21

24

25

22

23

27

SO, IF YOU WANT SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT THIS,

TH.':'; IS FINE, I WILL GIVE IT TO YOU. lF YOU WANT YOUR

28 AF':'RNEY, I \VlLL LET TH ..~T HAPPEN ALSO. IT IS UP TO YOU,

20 TO ~=LL YOU OF YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY HERE IF YOU

4

19

2

3

S 'r(; urr15

Judge Stoutt to Sobstruct justice andcover-up the murderby Fisk's informantthreatened witnessSiegel with a murdercharge to frightenand stop her fromtestifying to the 9exculpatory evidenceof the 12:14 a.m.phone call from theCatal a house. 11Siegel was willing totestify but Judge 2Stoutt ordered herto get attorney 13Kenton, who he knewwould stop Siegelfrom testifying to the12:14 a.m. phone 15call which wascrucial exculpatoryevidence and ­exposed Fisk's storyas a complete lie.

THE BIUBED ATrORNEY KENTON CONSPIRED WITH JUDGE STOUTT TO KEEP THE TRU'lli FROM

BEING PRESENTED IN COURT SO THE CORRUPT JUDGES AND FISK COULD COVER UP THE

MURDER BY THEIR ACCOMPLICES. FELON DOZIER AND NELSON.

THIS WAS A CONSPIRACY TO USE TERROR AND FEAR AGAINST WITNESS SONIA SIEGEL TO

BLOCK THE TRUTH FROM BEING PRESENTED, WHICH. WAS A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE

GUARANTEED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE PRIVATE CITIZEN 'I.U BE ABLE TO HAVE "THE

TRUTH" PRESENTED IN A COURT OF LAW.

THIS VIOLATED SONIA SIEGEL' S. TANYA' S AND ROBERT PEERNOCK' S CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHT TO PRESENT THE TRUTH, WHICH WOULD EXPOSE THE JUDGES' RACKETEERING SCAM

TO "FALSELY" AND "ILLEX;ALLy" IMPRISON SIEGEL, TANYA AND ROBERT PEERNOCK 'I.U

COVER UP THE MURDER PLANNED BY THE JUDGES, IXXlM. FISK. ETC., SO THEY COULD RIP

Q~ THE ESTATE AND RETALIATE AGAINST ROBERT PEERNOCK, AND HIS FAMILY,' FOR

"BLaoIING THE WHISTLE" ON THEIR CORRUPTION.

THERE IS "NO" LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE JUDGES TO BLOCK THE ,TRUTH FROM BEING

PRESENTED. ALL JUDGES SWEAR TO OBEY THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE PRIVATE

CITIZEN TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT THE TRUTH. BUT STOOTT AND HIS OORRUPT BUDDY

JDDGES CONSPIRED TO DISOBEY THEIR OATH OF OfFICE. AND BRIBED KENTON TO BLOCK

THE TRUl'H FROM BEING PRESENTED.

,KENTON WAS BRIBED TO COVER UP THE MURDER CARRIED OUT BY FELON DOZIER AND

NELSON, AND TO KEEP TANYA. "ILLEGALLY" AS A PRISONER OF NELSON SO 'l'HE CORRUPT

JDDGES COULD CONTINUE THEIR RACKETEERING SCAM.

7.

861

HERSocF IF I ALLOW HER TO ANSWER?

2 F,R. PEERNOCK: NO, SHE HAS NOT, YOUR HONOR.

3 THE COURT: WILL LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENT.

4 DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO TELL ME?

5 MR. PEERNOCK: THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS GOING

6 TO Bo ELICITED IN T~E TESTIMONY OR CAUSE ANY PROBLEMS.

7 THo COURT: ALL RIGHT, THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.

B F,R. PEERNOCK: SIR, 1 WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT SHE

9 WAIVoJ HER RIGHT TO TESTIFY WHEN SHE TOOK THE STAND TO GIVE

10 Lir'.IED TESTIMONY AND SHE WAIVED HoR RIGHT THEN.

11 I ,"-1·\ G01NG TO LIMIT F,Y QUESTIONS ALL THE UP UNTIL

12 JUS~ THE 24Ti-! OF JULY.

FOR

THERE IS

CHARGED IN ABEEt"

MAY 1 SPEAK TO THE ATTORNEY FOR

SHE HAS AL;;EADY

NO, SHE HAS NOT WAIVED IT, YOUR HONOR,

", ~.,

PLEASE.

KENTON:

~IR. PEERNC'CK:

NOW. THAT CHARGE WAS DISMISSED PURSUANT TO A

THo COURT:

THo COURT: HOW ABOUT THAT, COUNSEL, HAS SHE

MK.

F,R. KENTON:

CAt! PUT O~~ THE RECORD WHY.

ALLEGED ACTS WHICH SHE COMMITTED AFTER THE DEATH OF

NOTHING OBVIOUSLY BEFORE THE DEATH OF CLAIRE PEERNOCK THAT

CLAIRE PEERNOCK WITH REGARD TO ROBERT PEERNOCK,

WOULD BE RELEVANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION 32 CHARGE.

CRIMINAL FELONY ACTION FOR UNDER PENAL CODE SECTION 32

Ufo;C'ER JEOF'A~OY.

13Attorney Kentonadmitted that there VlAlVED THE RIGHT'was nothing:' .obviously before thedeath of Claire thatwould put Siegeiii1jeopardy. "The 12:14 a.m. phonecall was over fourhours before the IBdeath of Claire,which took place 1924 miles away fromthe Catala house byFisk's office, , -.. -,The evidence of this12:14 a.m, phonecompletely destroysFisk's made-up stOryand naturally WOUldexonerate Siegel of.any charges that 24Fisk might make-up:.

Attorney Kenton, ~" PENAL CODE SECTION 32 CHARGE, THOUGH IT WAS DISMISSEDthough, was conspiring

with Judge Stout, the PURSUANT TO 995, OF COURSE, IT CAN BE REFILED. SHE ISNYC Judges, and theprosecutors to keepSiegel terrorized andunder the fear of thementally ill, alcoholicFisk arresting her L --:- _again',

oG4

THEY ~E ALLOWED TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS AFTER THE 24TH OF JULY?

2 TH: COURT: AM NOT FOLLOWING. THEY ARE ALLOWED

3 TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON HER ANSWERS ALREADY IN THE RECORD.

4 MR. OWENS: YOUR HONOR, I AM GOI NG TO OBJECT

5 TO ~~. PEERNOCK SOLICITING ADVISE FROM THE COURT.

6 TH: COURT: HE IS ASKING Mt A QUESTION.

7 MR. OWENS: YOUR HONOR, HE IS TRYING TO GEl A

TH: CUURT: I AM NUT GIVING HIM ANY LEGAL ADVISE.

8 Lt·G.~.'_ EDUCATiON.

9

10 IS THERE A QUESTION?

AM GOING TO HAVE TO ADVIs:

EXCUSE I-',E, SIR.

THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.

AND WAS THERE A VERY CARING AND LOVING

YES, SHE DID.

DID TANYA PEERNOCK SPEND TIME WITH YOUR

MS. SIEGEL, DID ROBERT PEERNOCK CALL YOU

KENTON:

n-:: COURT:

A

Q

Q

M~.

Q

t...,~. PEERNOCK:

SIEGEL NOT TO ANSWER THAT ON THE GROUNDS OF FIFTH

ON JULY 21ST, 1987?

APPROXIMATELY 12:00 O'CLOCK THE PREVIUUs EVENING, THAT WAS

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DAUGHTER AND YOUR SON WITH.

11

Witness Siegeltold Fisk in a 12 BY '1R. PEERr-lOCK:recorded interview onon July 23, 1987, Ithat A ellant calledher at 12:14 a.m.'(which was overfour hours beforeClaire was murdered

.2Y. Fisk's informantby Fisk's office).Siegel told Fiskthat Appei'iant toldher during this 18 A~IENDMENT .phone call that Claireand Natasha left at10:30 p.m. in theCadillac. This was BY NR. PEERNQCK:the time that Natashatold Officer Warschawthat they had left. IKenton,withStoutt, DAUGHTEI{ AND YOUR SON, LISA SIEGEL ANI.) SCOTT SIEGEL?conspired to obstructjustice and blockedSiegel from testifyingto this fact--whichwas proved bythe phone records.

T."NYA PEERNOC)(?

A YES, THE WERe EXTKEMELY FOND OF HER. THEY

GOT ALOI~G, IWi

'11,-3 ct.

·.'.': , ..

REFORT BY D~lECTIVc FiSK

As can b~ seen by the following portion of page 3 of Foothill

detective Fisk's Report, Fisk knew that Robert Peernock phoned Sonia

Siegel at around midnight (the phone records prove the call was made at

12:14 A.M.), Fisk knew this was after Natasha, and Claire had left in the

Cadillac at 10:30 P.M., as Natasha told Officer Warschaw , and InvestigatorCarnello. (See the included. testimony of Officer Warschaw at the PrelimHearing) .

Prosecutor Richman, Judqe Schwab, and Green knew the story thatfisk forced, and brainwashed Natasha to repeat was .untrue, and that

Natasha and Claire had left the Catala house at 10:30 P.M" and met some

guys, and that Robert Peernock was still at the house .at~ A.M., andthen at 3:30 A.M.~ for breakfast at the Saugus Restaurant.

Richman, Schwab, and Green maliciously withheld the telephonerecords of the 12:14 A.M. 'phone call, . and withheld the Saugus Restay.rant

cancelled check and recelpt. 80th these pieces of evidence proved it was

imposslble for Appellant to have had anything to do with the car crashby Fisk.' s oEice.

On July 23, 1997 at approximately 1930 hours, Sonya Siegel,"-''':~-~suspect's girlfriend was int~rviewed at Foothill Station. ~he statec.------~_hat she has lived with Rober~ ?eernock (susp~ct) on a contlnuous ~asls

:o~ 57C>O El;h~anda Avenue, apartmE':"'\t 254, Tar~ana, gnce 1964. She----,=-·.=-.:,;-=otates that Robert owns two vehicles, hlhich she described as a ~971______~~adillac, 2 docr black and a 1976 Datsun, blue with a white strlpe.::-::-:::-==5he indicated that these vehicles were driven by suspect on a regular======~'asis and would be parked at either 27367 Cata1a Avenue, Saugus or 5700______~=tiwanda Avenue, Tarzana. She also stated that he maintains a set of~~~=ools at tne Catala address which he u:~d regularly. .

Miss Siegel furthe~ related that suspect left the re5iden~~ on July~1 1987 sometime around 11:00 AM. He stated that he was gOlng to run

·--·--=o~e err~nd al'':d "",,QuId be back shortly. She did not hear from suspectuntil· ':_ight around midnight., At that time he stated to her th~t he wa'jwcirking on his car (Datsun)t but that he was unable to oet b~Ck home

·-·-:.=.::bec.ause they (referring to decedant and Natasha) had taken hlS-,- Cadillac. On July 22, 1987, at 10:00 hours he (suspect) called and .--'--"~'::.1:== ::i.:;.t roc ~.;:J:':!~ :Je h::::':C' .:.!: ~:;:IC:":. :-!e =~~ ~=': o;:!1~~.: ~~ ~t h,=,~e u:::t:!

_____~:lpproy.imately 7:00 Pt1. When he c1r,·ived at home} he stated thc1t he hc1d..:....::.:-.........:.been to the> hospital, but that they did not allow him to see Natasha.

?AGE 3 0i' 6

. l-i IIEXHIBt\ MM

'1'4-4-

-,

ELEVEN YEAR OLD TANYA WAS KIDNAPPED AND KEPT ISOLATED FROM HER FATHER, HERAUNT, AND ALL HER RELA'l'IVES AND ANYONE WHO WOULD TELL HER THE TRUTH. AND SHEWAS SHOWN NEWS PAPER ARTICLES BY THEIR SHILL WRITERS BASED ON FISK'S MADE UPSTORY, WllICH FISK MADE UP BEFORE THE CRASH AND THEIR MURDER. AND WHICH EVENTHE CORRUPT, BIASED JUDGE SCHWAB "RULED" AND FOUND AS A "FACT" THAT FISK'SSTORY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM NATASHA BECAUSE OF THE OPERATION TOHER~ IN 'l'HI:: REGION THAT AFFECTS Mm:lRY.

WHILE COMPLETELY ISOLATED FROM THE TRO'l'H, TANYA WAS SUBJRCTED TO CONSTANTBRAINWASHING BY THE NELSONS AND THE JUDGES' ARMY OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, PAID '1'0DESTROY HER INDEPENDANT THINKING. TO·CARRY OUT THE JUDGES' RACKETEERING SCAM,JUDGE STOUTT "ORDERED" 'tHAT THE FA'l'HER, ROBERT PEERNOCK, COULD HAVE NO CONTACTWITH HIS DAUGHTER, COULD.BQ! WRITE HER, COULD. NOT PHONE HER, AND COULD NOT

.QUESTION OR SEE HER WHEN SHE WAS BROUGHT TO C.'OURT TO REPEATED HER REHEARSEDSTA'rEMENTS. THIS WAS SO THEY COULD PREVENT TH8IR "NAZI BRAINWASHING" FROMBEING EXPOSED, AND SO THESE CORRUPT JUDGES COULD CON'.rINUE USING TANYA'S NAMETO STEAL AND SHARE AMONG THEMSELVES ROBERT PEERNOCK'S·MONEY AND PROPERTY.

IN THE UNITED STATES A PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, BUT SO THESERACKETEERING JUDGES COULD CARRY OUT THEIR .ILLEGAL SCAM THEY IMMEDIATELY STOLEROBERT PEERNOCK'S BANK ACCOUNTS, HOUSES AND BUSINESS INCOME PRODUCINGPROPERTIES, AND ISSUED REPEATED "ORDERS" 'ro BLOCK PEERNOCK FROM HAVING ANYCON'l'ACl' WITH DEFENSE WIWESSES TO BLOCK THEIR RACKETEERING SCMl FRml BEINGEXPOSIID. EACH INVESTIGATOR WAS HARASSED, THREATEI\'ED AND BRIBED BY THESEJUDGES TO STOP THEIR INVESTIGATIONS. AND~ AND EVERY (PHONEY) DEfENSEATTORNEY WAS BRIBED BY THESE CORRUPT JUDGES TO BLOCK ALL DEFENSE. TrIESECORRUPT JUDGES REPEATEDLY ISSUED "ORDERS" THAT ROBER'£ PEERNOCK SHOULD BEBLOCKED FROM PHONING ANY AT1DRNEY, OOULD NOT HAVE VISITORS, AND HIS MAILREPEATEDLY S'lDLEN, AND HIS LEGAL FILES WERE ALSO "ORDERED" BY THE JUDGES TO BEREPEATEDLY STOLEN.

THESE CORRUPT JUDGES CONSPIRED TO HAVE ROBERT PEERNOCK BEATEN EACH TIME HE WASBROUGHT TO COURT IN ONGOING ATl'EMP'fS 'ro DISCOURAGE HIM FROM MAKING H}:S RECORDON THESE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AND 'rHIS RACKETEERING SCAM flY THE JlJDGES.AND BECAUSE ROBERT PEERNOCK COMPLETELY IMPEACHED FISK'S MADE UP STORY AND THEREHEARSED FALSE TESTIMONY OF NATASHA AT THE ADJUDICATION TRIAL--ESTARLISHIN~

"IXXJBLE JEOPARDY· AND THA'£ BOTH ROBERT PEERNOCK AND HIS DAUGHTER, TANYA, WERE"ILLEX>ALLY· BEING HELD IMPRISONED--THESE CORRUPT JUDGES CDNSPIRED TO BLOCK ANDFIND AN EXCUSE TO DENY ROBER'r PEERNOCK HIS "ABSOLU'rE" CONSTI'IDTIONAL RIGHT TODEFEND HIMSELF AND CONTINUE EXPOSING THEIR RACKET~~RING SCAM. AND THESECORRUPT JUDGES CONSPIRED TO DESTROY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE EXPOSING. THEIRRACKETEERING SCAM, AND THREATENED, HARASSED, BRIBED, HAD THEIR COPS BEAT, ANDSHOOT. AND FRAME, AND FALS~LY IMPRISON, AND TERRORIZE, AND KILL, ETC.,WITNESSES AND INVESTIGATORS IN ATTEMPTS TO PREVENT THEIR RACKBTEERING SCAMFROM BEING EXPOSED.

THESF: CONSTITUTIONAL VlOLAnOIllS BY 'fHESE CORRUPT JUDGES WERE TAKING PLACEAGAINST ROBERT PEERNOCK ALTHOUGH HE WAS INNOCENT OF THE FABRICAT~D

CHARGES--AND.IGNORING THAT A CITIZEN IN THE UNITED STATES IS INNOCENI UNTILPROvEN GUILTY--AND ALTHOUGH THE ADJUDICATION TRIAL ESTABLISHED '!'HAT FISK'SMADE UP STORY AND THE REHEARS8D TES'rIMONY WERE IMPEACHED AND DISMISSED, AFTERBEING LITIGATED AND PROVEN UNTRUE, WHICH UNEQUIVOCALLY F;S'£ABLISHED ROBERTPEERNOCK'S INNOCENCE. ALL GUARANTEED CXJNSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST f~LSE

IMPRISONMENT BY CORRUPT OFFICIALS WERE,VIOLATED SO THESE CORRUPT JUDGES COULDKEEP ROBERT PEERNOCK AND HIS 11 YEAR OLD DAtJGH'rER, FALSELY ARRESTED, ANDILLEGALLY IMPRISONED.

%55

DIRECT EXAMINATION

2 BY "P-, PEERNOCK:

3 Q{<.,'I 0 V/e-l

MS, SIEGEL, HAVE YOU ~ew ROBERT PEERNOCK

4 ANC HIS DAUGHTER FOR APPROXIMATELY 8 YEARS?

5

6

A

Q

YES,

DID YOU OBSERVE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

7 ROEEET PEERNOCK AND HIS DAUGHTER, TANYA?

8

9

A

Q

YES, I DID,

COULD YOU TELL THE COURT WHAT SORT OF A

10 RELATIONSHIP THAT WAS?

11 A IT WAS AN EXCELLENT RELATIONSHIP,

12 l"\R, QViENS: I WOULD OBJ~CT TO THE QUESTION WITHOUT

13 FU~THE~ FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR, I WANT THIS QUESTION

15

14 PHRASED IN TERMS OF TIME.

THE COURT: JUST HOLD 0:" I AM" SUSTAIN'ING THE

16 OEJECTION, LAY A BETTER FOUNDATION.

17 BY MR. PEERNOCK:

18 Q DID TANYA SPEND WEEKENDS WITH YOU AND

19

20

21

22

ROBERT PEERNOCK?

MR. OWENS: OBJECTION, FOUNDATION.

THE WITNESS: YES, SHE DID.

THE COURT: IS THAT YES TO THAT; DID SHE SPEND

23 WEEkENDS WI TH HIM?

24

25

26

27

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. PEERNOCK: WHAT MORE OF A FOUNDATION DO I NEED?

MR, OWENS: WANT TO KNOW WHEN, YOUR HONOR.

TH~ COUR.T: YOU ARE GO I NG TO HAVE A CHANCE TO

28 EXAMINE IF MR. PEERNOCK DOESN'T BRING IT OUT YOU WILL GET

'l..

856

A CHI-.f·IC E .

BY I'.?. PEERNOCK:

THIS SINCE YOUR DAUGHTER ALLEDLY FEARS YOU BECAUSE SllE

DEATH OF CLAIRE PEERNOCK AND THAT IS NOT RELEVANT.

AND THEN WE WILL GO FROM THAT POINT.

1 THINK IT IS RELEVANT TOMR. PEERNOCK:

WILL TESTIFY TO. ALL COUNSEL HAVE LOOKED AT IT AND I

THAT THERE IS A WRITTEN STATEMENT AS TO WHAT MS. SIEGEL

MR. OWENS: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A STjPULATION

PHRASE, "PRIOR TO THE DEATH OF CLA1RE PEERNOCK". MY ONLY

ESTABLISH IN THE RECORD THAT IT WAS A CLOSE AND LOVING

HAV:: NO OBJECTION TO IT BEING -- IF IT IS PRECEDED BY THE

AND CARING R::LATIONSHIP BEFORE THE DEATH OF CLAIRE P::ERNOCK

HIS DAUGHTER, TANYA?

A YES, I DID.

0 AND DID YOU GO ON TRIPS TOGETHER?

A YES.=

MR. miENS: OBJECTION, RELEVANCY.

THe COURT: ALL. RIGHT. I BELIEVE WE WENT eVER

Q FRO~ APPROXIMATELY 1981 ON UNTIL 1988 OR1M

AM SORRY -- 1987 AI~D" THE SUMMER OF 1987, DID YOU SPEND

A GREAT DEAL OF TIME IN T~E COMPANY OF ROBERT PEERNOCK AND

8ELI::VES YOU KILLED ;-;ER f'IOTHER, IT SEEMS TO ME PRE Trio

s::a.rt:t clairrs 2that treirftjllemJl' 3kifra:lJin:lof tha tEQ:w, 4

verv~will <rlj.1stErl5II vmr: aId'IaJ,ra arrl 6

. t:eo:a:i.ziro,arrl atJ;ied:iJqrer to u....,tat:b:air5a:trin:} b,rusin::J their''lies- arrl 9 .FiSc's fa1£efTcry, alre3dy .p:o;m fa1£eat tha 11MjrlirntimTrial, 12

W3S 2!&.t:elev<rt:" 13to rattJIIin:I~arrl 14pl;rirq rerwith rer 15bl.cxrl rel.at:iVffi

a5dlrtatffl 16b,r tha law. ,an.:tt c1ajum

eIIE!:Y\:hirq \olE

:i:creleat: eohe a:uld ke;p'IaJ,ra as-,9

thair lri=a:"mJro their 20r.rleta2rin:Iq;I'"Q,~ 21arrl treircrxnrpliO?S, 22cwld a::ntinueJ:d±Jin:l the 23esI:<Ite.

24 OBJECTION THEN WOULD BE THAT IT IS NOT RELEVANT.

25 THE COURT: WELL, I A/-', GOING TO SUSTAIN HiE

26 OBJECTION TO RELEVA~CY. I THINK YOU CAN PROBABLY TRY TO

27 SHOW THE RELATIONSHI~ IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE DEATH AND

28 THEREAFTER ON THE DATE OF THE DEATH; BUT ~UCH BtFOR:: THAT

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2B

aS7

IS NOT GOING TO HELP THE TRIER OF FACT AS TO THE ISSUES

IN THIS CASE.

BY f"l?. . PEERNOCK:

Q WAS TANYA vI! TH YOU FOR ABOUT SEVERAL WtEKS

BEFORE JULY 22ND, 1987?

A YtS, SHE WAS.

MR. OWENS: OBJECTION, RELEVANCY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY I.t.~ . PtERNOCK:

Q . DID ROBE"T PEERNOCK AND TANYA SPEND ;' I ME

TOGETHER IN YOUR PRESENCE, THE DAYS PRECEEDING THE ACCIDENT

OF JULY 22, 1987 ?

A YES} THEY D1D.

Q WHAT WAS THE RELATIONSHIP FRO/". YOUR

OBSERVATION AT THAT TIME?

A A VERY LOV I r,G AND VERY CLOSE RELAT 10~,SHI P.

SHE WAS ALWAYS ON YOUR LAP, SHE WAS .ALWAYS

LOOKING FORWAi<O TO YOUR BEING HOME AND TO BEING AROUND YOU•

AND DCING THINGS WITH YOU, DOING THINGS WITH YOU AND SHE

ADOi<::D HER FATHER.

Q DID TANYA ALWAYS ASK HER FATHER TO COME [1'1-ANC' TUCK HER IN AT NIGHTTIME WHEN SHE WENT TO BED?

MR. OlvENS: OBJECTION, VAGUE AS TO TIME.

THE COURT: YOU SAID ALWAYS, THAT I S EVERY TIME,

IT ! S NOT VAGUE.

THE IvITNESS: YES, SHE ALWAYS WAITED UP AND ASKED=

TO 6E TUCKED IN AND HER FATHER AUvAYS SPENT A LOT OF TIME

In 1M HER .. TALKING TO HER AND IT IvAS A LONG CERE~',ONY AND, of,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

'9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

858

THEY 60TH 'ENJOYED IT VERY MUCH. SHE FELT VERY LOVED, VERY

SECURE.

BY ,.".? . PEERNOCK:

Q DID TANYA AT ANY TIME EVER SAY THAT SHE

FEARED HER FATHER?

A NOT AT ALL, JUST THE OPPOSITE.

Q HOW DID SHE REFER TO HER FATHER WHEN SHE

TALK::D ABOUT HER FATHER?----A WHEN. SHE SAID, MY DAD THAT AND MY DAD THAT

.. ..

AND "::;'..JI:" WAS SM.ILlNG AND I T WAS OBVIOUS THAT SHE FELT A LOT~" ....

OF LCv:: . YOU COULD SEE IT IN HER EYES AND IN HER BEHAVIOR

AND ·'jfENNESS TOWARDS HIM.

- Q DID SHE OFTEN SAY THAT SHE LOVED HER FATHER?

A ALL THE TIME.

Q DID SHE OFTEN KISS HER FATHER ON HIS CHEEK?

A ~, SHE DID.

Q DID SHE EVERY EVENING, y!HEN SHE WENT TO BED,

KISS HER FATHER?<

MR. OI'iENS: I 1-' ILL MAKE AN OBJECTION BEUIUSE THIS

IS ~'JT RELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES, SHE ALWAYS DID AND SHE MADE• 'II:

EVFRY EXCUSE TO BE CLOSE TO HER FATHER, TO HUG HIM AND THEY

HAD A WONDERFUL RELATIONSHIP.

BY !'H, . PEERNOCK:

Q DID HER FATHER TAKE HER SWIMI",]NG SEVERAL

DAYS PRECEDING THE ACCIDENT OF JULY 22, 1987 ?•

A YES, HER FATHER TOOK HER SWIMMING OFTEN.

15".

eS9

4

2

8

SHOULD NOT HONORTHE COURT: TE LL ~1E WHY ;r

MR. KENTON: 1 WILL INTERPOSE THE SAME OBJECTION.

WUULD LIKE TO LIMIT THE QUESTIONS -- ALL I WANT

I \·'A;·,T TO LI~',]T MY QUESTIONS ONLY FROM THE TIME THAT \~E

A VERY HAPPY.

REMOVED FROM SONIA SIEGEL'S CARE.

THt COURT·: LET'S JUST START ALL OVER AGAIN.

MR. KENTON: I AM GOING TO ADVISE ~1Y CLIENT

~R. PEERNOCK: MAY I, 51 R, OFFER AN OFFER OF PIWOF.

Q DO YOU REMEMBeR PLAYING PINGPONG TOGETHER

THE t1C)r~DAY PRECEDING THE ACCIDENT OF JULY 22ND, 198??

A I REMEMBER PLAYING PINGPONG.

Q WAS TANYA HAPPY?

Q THE EVENING AFTER WE WERE INFORMED OF

THE hCCIDENT, DID TANYA, YOU AND ROBERT PEERNOCK HAVE

BY MR. PEERNOCK:

Q DID YOU ANo ROBERT PEERNOCK AND TANYA PEERNOCK

WITHDRAW THE LAST QUESTION AND REPHRASE AND WE WILL SEE IF

WE HAVE AN OBJECTION.

15 THE TIME TANYA PEERNOCK wAS AR~ESTED AND TAKEN AWAY

FROM SONIA SIEGEL WHICH WAS AT 6:00 O'CLOCK ON JULY 2~, 1987.

DINN=R TOGETHER?

D=~T~ OF CLAIRE PEERNOCK ON THE GROUNDS AN ANSWER ~AY

THAT TOOK PLACE?

HAVE DINNER TOGETHER AFTER WE WERE INFORMED OF THE ACCIDENT

IIOT TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION OR ANY QUESTIONS AFTER THE

TE~D TO INCRIM1NAT= HER.

3

5

j i

i 3

23

2B

~.

20

21

24

Attcmey~

W3S tr::ihrl b{tre~

.Ju1:J's to keEps::nia SisJ;ilinaanst:a1tstate of tea:a:tlBt sre '"Wiidbe t:kon I::ackin iail m fake 6d_ to stcohel:" fran testifyirg 7to t:)-e tni:h:tlBt Itte:tIW:Juk Ihnrlhel:" at 12:14 A.M. 9fran tle Gltala !we.h:uge (as tle iOJ:h::re rau:d>o::ova:l), whimcmpletely~

F:i£k's &.a::v as : 2a "!:i.e••Ard to aIrostq>S:nia~

fran atterrrtin:1 1!

to 'let 'Ia1Ya ran:Mrlfran l'e1mlam 15Iive with her.Stott a:rEPinrl 15with AttarrEI' Fe1tmto ct:st:nrt 17

-utice too::Ner up the 18l1l.llXEr bY Stott'sbil:}y JLrl:1e E<hEtJ 19crrl FiSc'saca:nplices,N=la::n am felm11:ria:.'IhisW3S~tea:a: arxJ 22t:)-e tln'flt offalricatirqarother fakec:h3rQe aaa:instSie:le1 to~ _hel:" fron testifvin:l2~

to t:)-e t:I:1i:h,

ro Stcutt roJ1d

~~jlleq:illyas

tleir p::i.s:nE:!.

'nus W3S clrecd:Elru::tim of-;.moa amIEirQ tre ro.Irtfcr~

fer tre cn:rt1± 2,],,"1,+;, PrrBOOll;s

arrl~ 3FiSt to =a:D.reto Li:ricate 4fals! ch3rqes

a::ainst wi!n'ffi 5S:i.a:lel to blcx::k tret:ni:h fran I:eirq__ . 6testifie::I to.JIrd fer tre 7b::iI:ffi Attorre;FellIn to =a:D.re 8Witils=tt toJ<av wi!n'ffi furia 9Sirq>l tnJecfEar am t:a:rrr 10to bkd< tretruth fu:m teirq 11testilie::I to,arrl to fJ:zre 12this wi!n'ffito take tre Fifth 13to SUlllSS tret:ni:h, >.hien ;,QJ]Q14~Itl:ertfueauk's 15:ino:aa:e arrla1Bo p:ooe furia 16~iL.ii!Le.'!his W3S criminal 17cbsl:J:u:tim of-;.moa by staJtt 18

arrl~ tobkd< tre truth 19so tIEre cfu:iLl1±il,-=rt Ju:iles 20ro.l1d. artin:etreir rad<e!:£er: 21:im =m."This~usim 22fffiC' t:a:rrr am:intimidIl:im to 23bkd< tre trutharrla~to24violate ~·s,'!alva's am Itl:ert 25Peenuk's Q.Hral!:a'rlUrntit::ul:imal 26Rktestol::ectile to lXa:UJl 27tie truth in aaut of Ja,r. 28

360"'.. ..

THE CLAIM. 'HE OBJEC1ION IS ON THE "FIFTH AMENDMENT"?

MF: . KENTON: YES· YOUR HONOR.--'

TH:: COURT: I-IHY SHUULDN'T r HONOR THAT, MR. PEERNOCK?

MR. PEERNOCK: THE ATTORNEY FOR MS. SIEGEL IS

UNDE? THE It',PRESSION THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAS BEEN

HAR.'.5 SING f'Jr5 . SIEGEL AND IS GOING TO TRY TO BRING ADD I T IUNAL

CHARGES AGAII!ST HER IF SHE TESTIFIES TO ANYTHING.. '

HiE COURT: ARGUE TO ME WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS

SUFFICIENT FOUNDAT I ON IN THE RECORD FOR HER TO CLAW, THE

FIFTfi AMENDr1EIH AT THIS POINT IN TIME?

/-iP., •• FEERNOCK: TticKE is l'.ivT} "-CUR.................. BECAUSEnUf'llVK I.

THERE I S NOTCiING THAT I S GOING TO BE HARt~FUL TO WHAT TOOK,. .. = - =-"-~'",;:plf' --PLACE AFTER THE ACCIDENT AND ALL THE \-IAY TO THE T I t"',E THAT

TANYA PEERUOCK WAS ARRESTED AT 6:00 P,M. ON THE 24TH OF JULY.._--,. ..-T' ,- COURT: ANYTHI NG 'ELSE YOU WAtH TO TELL ME?1""::'

..t'!;; . PEERNOCK: TH.u.T I T I S VERY CRUCI;'L TO GET

THE COURT'S ~TTENT I ON THAT TANYA PEERNOCK WAS NOT AF::<AID..

OF HER FATH:,'" AND SHE W/'>,S I NFORV,E D OF THE ACCIDENT.

iHE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE?

n. PEERNOCK: IT I S ESSENTIAL TO GET INTO THE

RECORD THAI T.':;NYA PEERNOCK, AFTER KNOYlING THAT THE ACCIDENT

TOOK PLACE, THAT STILL SHE \-IAS VERY LOVING AND WAS NOT

AFRo,ID OF HER FATHER Ohl THE EVENING --

THE COURT: YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT AGAIN. THE

POINT I S h'H:: THER OR NOT THERE 1 S ENOUGH EVIDENCE IN THE

RECORD BEFORE fv'IE TO VALIDATE THE CLAIM IN FAVOR OF THE

FJFT~ M\EI\OHENT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. HAS SHE CARRIED

H:R 6URDEtI: 00: S THE RECORD SHOW THAT SHE MIGHT Ih:CRIMINATE

'-'.

7

2

!I

.256

BY I-IR. PEERNOCK:

0 DID YOU WANT VERY DESPARATELY TO HI'.'!E TANYA

LlVE WITH YOU BACK IN SEPTEMBER AND AUGUST OF 198??

A YES, I TRIED EVERYTHING IN MY POWER THAT

I COULD TO BRING THAT ABOUT.

Q DID TANYA TELL YOU BEFORE SHE WAS T,tKEN

AWn THAT SHE 'IANTED TO' STAY WITH YOU?

A NOT IN THOSE WORDS, BUT IN HER ACTION5

WE ,IERE VERY CL05E.

Q DID 5HE CRY AND SCREAM WHEN THEY CAi",E

AND ,cRRcSTED HER?

A 5HE WAS CRYING WHEN THE OFcICER5 CAliE

FOR HER. SHE DID NOT WANT TO LEAVE.

Q AND 5HE ASKED YOU TO HELP HER?.

fv'15. . BERN5TEIN: OBJECTION, LEADING, YOUR HONOR.

Tr;': COURT: WELL, I AM FAILING TO SEE THE--RELEVANCY.

i",R. . ~EERNOCK: THAT SHE WANTED TO 5iAY WITH

5ON 1'\ 5IEGEl ~~IHEN THEY CAME AND ARRESTED HER

TH:: COUR T: THAT DOESN'T DETERMINE WHERE I

5HOUlD LET HER LI 'IE. IF I SHOULD REMOVE HER. THAT I S THE

ISSUE IN THIS CASE.

BY ~1R . PEER.'lOCK:

Q I F YOU HAD BEEN MADE AWARE THAT TANYA

HAD BEEN BR."] N\,ASHED AGAINST HER FATHER AND AGAINST YOU,,

YOUR SON AND YOUR DAUGHTER, WOULD THAT CHANGE YOUR OPINION

A80VT WANTING TANY,\ TO --

i",R. Ch'Et\S: o BJ ECT I 0 ~~ I IMPROPER HYPOTHET I C.'1l..'

SOMa.. 5 { e eL (l..i I)e JekC(?l"'-'c.. - I

6

5

21

20

10

Stcutt c1aiua'!that v.!1En tllcvUSEd their tazi, 3r-estqn ta:::tic withtheir "krnn" --4b:qus, fal fp

arrest \oBIXiDtto l<:i.<la:>'nn<,9 ro tllcv=lid use lEe~to rrbtheestate, tlBt '!l'nVa'sda:vinI that S1e ) .

\£fll:W tD stayW3S ":io:eleI7alt." 9Stcutt clainErl,in his tyoigilFa<rist}Dllrl sot/that he <DJ1lh't 11

~tIE m1.Ewirorthat his NJzi 12

rad<Eteerin:J grrop 13led violated thelaw ternrizirg~ arr:J t:ha1furt:IEI:- terr<rizirg 15ta:- bt- p1acirqta:- with their 16?!"TTDJ?1 ire, lie1s::n, whokilled her lIDther 17after gettin:) herrrother cdl:icterl to 18~strott p:etad;rl 19to he tilirrl,dill arr:J <bib~all of the:irilla;pl. racke­tEe-rirg a::imin3lects, tlat a1ro 22violated all riqhtsca.arcIJI:eaj b{ the 23u.s. O:r<3tilJJt:irn.

28

24

25

26

27

4

2

3

M'. PEERNOCK: THAT THE RELATIONSHIP 8ETWEEN

THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE REPORT?

t-',S. BERNSTEIN: I WOULD JOIN.

WH~T IS IT THAT YUU MAINTAIN SHE TOLD TERRI CLARK

RELE\·ANT.

THE COURT: THAT DOES NOT TELL ME WHY ITIS

THE COURT: WELL, IT IS IRRELEVANT, HER BELIEF

TER~: CLARK NEVER GOT INTO TERRl CLARK'S REPORT.

M~. PEERNOCK: THE RELEVANCY IS WHAT SHE TOLD

IS I~RELEVAI.:. THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.

AN O=cER OF PROOF.

Q DID YOU TALK TO TERRI CLARK PERTAINING

Te:E COURT: MR. PEERNOCK, I AM FAILING TO SEE

RELEVANCY r;ow TOTALLY; YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TU GIVE Mt

TO ,AQYA?

BY M~. PEERNOCK:

BY;·',. ?EERI.0CK:

OR YOUR SON OR YOUR DAUGHTER?- .~~~ 0 __ - ._••

8&7

THE (OURT: THE COURT SUSTAINS THE OBJECTION

AND IT I S I RRELEVArH.

MR. OWENS: OBJECTION, THE WITNtSS IS NOT

COMPETENT TO MAKE THAT CLAIM OR THAT KIND OF AN ANALYSIS.

Q FROM KNOWING TANYA FOR SOME 8 YEARS BEFORE

SHE WAS ARRESTED OR FORCIBLY TAKEN AWAY, WOULD YOU HAVE

! HA~JER TIME BELIEVING THAT SHE DUES NOT WANT.TO SEE YOU

18

21

13

19

17

11

15

24

12

10

16

25

In ctstro:timof jEticeSni:t c1ajuFiftteir "j]]f!li1-

)ciIhwirg of~ an::] thEn

their abjittin:J her 5to N3z:i-Ea<rist~~,in 6vialatim of allU.S. Un5t:itliiCim 7Ri.<tts an::] All Ei.nm

-Ri.<tts, to tum 8~ a::Jainst~"ill :Iouej an::] 9Cl'lI:ID for her,\as :i.treleIIa1l:.Ard S:a.tt claimrlthat~

irreI.eIalt thatthe "a:wtp" ~~ott an::] IX:S'sIn\eti.gata:s,fury CIarl<. an::]

'IbrlI.y Qri.l.ey,;.ere 14naliciaJsl~ ..full

'.~

of diliI:a:ate"lies11--a,s Qrdere:j~ the o::rnp:JutjefHt"a dm:nizethe ElI:ta:"- .while d?l iter-ately withlDldin:!all "fa ts"that eJqXI:Rlthat theirIEp:rts ;.ere Mib- 20erate lilies. II

This ;,as ana!:t.eJJ:! ~ Stoott!Q....!IT to jlStiiy 22their "illegal"Jcid:Ewirg of~ 23ro tlet <DJldCBlrY a:d: t:lcirnrl<eta=rin:J--;m,.

26 TAN)'.!' PEERN0cK AND HER FATHER WAS VERY CLOSE; THAT TA~~

27 PEE~NOCK LOVED HER FATHER AND HAD NO FEAR'OF HER FATHER

28 BEFORE SHE was TAKEN AWAY.

TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, COVER UP AND BLOCK THEIR JURY RIGGING BY JUDGE SCHWAB AND

PROSECUTOR RICHMAN FROM BEING EXPOSED--PLACING THEIR FRIENDS AND~

OPERATIVES ON THE JURY TO CONVINCE THE OTHER JURORS TO VOTE GUILTY AND IGNORE

THE UNEQUIVOCAL "FAer" THAT THE MURDER WAS CARRIED OUT BY SCHWAB, l:XXJM AND

FISK'S ACCOMPLICES, OOZIER AND NELSON, AND THAT ROBERT PEERNOCK WAS "NOT" AT

THE SCENE AT ANY TIME--SCIlWAB'S CORRUPT BUDDY JUDGE, SCH/ICTER, "ORDERED" THAT

ROBERT PEERNOCK' S LEGAL FILES BE STOLEN FROM HIS CELL, AND THAT INVESTIGAroR

SANCHEZ BE THREATENED THAT HIS LICENSE WOULD BE TAKEN IF HE TRIES ro.EXPOSES

THEIR JURY RIQ3ING. (THESE WERE FEDERAL CRIMINAL Acrs BY SCHACTER, ",CIlWAB AND

RICHMAN.]

CORRUPT JUDGE SCHWAB HAD "NO" JURISDIerION TO STAGE HIS RIGGED TRIAL AFTER

THEIR MURDER CASE WAS LITIGATED AT THE ADJUDICATION TRIAL AND THE COURT

"DISMISSED"--AS IMPEACHED AND UNTRUE--FISK'S MADE UP STORY AND FALSE TESTIMONY

THAT NllTASHA WAS REHEARSED ro REPEAT. PROSECUTOR RICHMAN ADMITTED TliAT SCHWAB

HAD NO JURISDIcrION, BUT ONLY REFERRED TO THE 170.1 FILED AGAINST HII1.

SCHWAB--WHOSE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE WAS EXPOSED FOR TAKING KICK BACKS AND•

BRIBES ON STATE CONTRACTS--AS ASSISTANT A'I".IDRNEY GENERAL DEFENDED AGAINST

ROBERT PEERNOCK' S LAW SUITS EXPOSING THEIR RACKETEERING SCHEMES, AND SCHWAB

ENGAGED IN "CRIMINAL CONFLIer OF INTEREST" AND BLOCKED ALL DEFENSE DURING

SCHWAB'S "ILLEGAL" FAKE, RIGGED TRIAL ro FRAME ROBERT PEERNOCK FOR roE MURDER

OF CLAIRE, PLANNED AND SET UP BY SCHWAB, DOOM, AND FISK IN. RETALIATION FOR

ROBERT PEERNOCK "BLOWING THE WHISTLE" ON THEIR CORRUPTION.

IN THEIR OBSTRUCTlOO OF JUSTICE THE L. A- JUDGES CO'iSPlRED ro SET UP 'rHEIR

DISHONEST, CORRUPT COLLEAGUE JUDGE IN ORGANGE <XXJNTY TO ALWAYS COVER UP FOR

THEIR EGREGIOUS, CXJTRAGES "CONFLIer OF IN'l'ERESTS," AND FOR THE L.A. JUDGES

USING THEIR COURT AS RACKETEERING ENTERPRISES.

THE "ONLY TIME" THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY JUDGE RULED ON A 170.1 AGAINST A L.A.

JUDGE WAS IN A CONSPIRACY WITH THE L.A. JUDGES TO JUSTIFY MOVING THE "RODNEY

KING TRIAL" TO SIMI VALLEY WHERE THE JUDGES COULD FIX THE JURY BY COMPLETELY

FILLING AND RIQ3ING TIill- JURY WITH THE COPS' CXlNTROLLED JURY POOL. SIMI VALLEY

IS COMPLETELY CONTROLLED BY THE~.

7

1

24

14

J.

4284

MR. RICHMAN: THERE IS NO ATTORNEY-CLIEN.'!' --PRIVILEGE.

THE COURT: IF HE STARTS SAYING THAT, THEN I'LLPeer/)ou.:. (s

ORDER THAT HIS CELL BE GONE THROUGH AND HIS RECORDS f2.e<Md.s-, ... __.-"

:tf\veSri~a/~·t"REMOVED AND I'LL START ASKING FOR HIS LICENSE. S(L,,<-b,e-~'5

~ ,. , /..-. o''''.seMR. RICHMAN: THANK YOU. I'LL WRITE THE PAPERS

CONCERNING AN ORDER TO SHO\~ CAUSE FOR THURSDAY AFTERNOON

IN REGARDS TO MR. SANCHEZ.

THE COURT: CORRECT.

MR. RICHMAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN RE CONTEMPT FOR

VIOLATING COURT ORDERS AND INQUIRY OF INTHlIDATION OF10 (o~l'e.v up j7-, (lIt"

JURORS. 3"<lY'''/iff''''?

MR. RICHMAN: 'SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, THE REASON I

AM IN THIS COURT AS OPPOSED TO DEPARTMENT F IS BECAUSE A:

170.1 ~IOTION HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST JUDGE SCHWAB AND THAT-_.._---._._"

HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED. IT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO ORANGE

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT TO DETERMINE. AND JUDGE SCHWAB-' ---

THEREFORE FEELS THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO.- .__ .._.._._---_..-_.._--

HANDLE ANYTHING IN THIS REGARD.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

WE'LL PROCEED WITHOUT THE LEGAL FILE",

.BECAUSE IT'S IN ORANGE COUNTY. WE'LL WORK FROM THE.,

I

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S FILE."

MR. RICHMAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS DATE WERE CONCLUDED. )

20

27

25

26

28

'Il-.ere a:a:r:q:tJ$ >.ere l:Eirg~trder- treRICO I\ct infEd2ral aut,G3:'E fB-.(HB, by 2Iti:Ert Pe2n=kam an:pinrl to 3stmltre~fj les am evidn::e 4to te use:J ;:mimi:~amtre 5evidn::e of th2irJu:.y rimin:J. 6SdI,ID's b.rl:IjJuiJe &meta:a:theJ &at 8Iti:Ert Peerr=k's1£qll files t:estolm. 9

SdI,ID am his 10~ J....:ge SdEcteranpinrl to a:>ver 11Lp tteir planOIIlXtk by treir 12cnnrptices, felm~ am Nllirn'13am stole amSmeJaImjt:h3Irelvastre hri< co:o.nts, 15II:1:fm am h.5irH5p:q:a:Ues of 16Fd:ert F'E€rlo:k. .An:J alro ooll ertOO 1 7'an:] SBreJ tre llleirsxaIFs &at 18treir a:rrnpl.i.g:,~1aS~1901 Claire.'The S3IE ocan&at FiSc'sco::np:: b.Ifi( a:p:;,2 1Vm Villas cn:1 ftJrl,carrie:J cut with 2 2the Julp; ferCJJer 10 'y'e3(S. 2 3An:J SdEctert:tnttam

A InIie3t• S<n:t8<

to tale aw:IYhis l.ical92 to~him franexp::5irIJ ttcirJJCY ri9i!inJ.

LOS ANGELES TIMES SUNDA Y. DECEMBER "~ '0110 *

Only~ floes a juoge in acriminal case overturn the verdictreached by jurors in her own court­room. Still rarer is the judge whoildmits to committing an error sosenousit tamts a verdict.

Los Angeles County SuperiorCourt Judge Jacqueline Connor did ...both Friday m~ht in an e:x"traordi­nary rulmg that oyerlurned the,:onvtctions 'of three Rampart Divi­.5ian oolice officers.. -At least one senoiar, i10wever,questiOned whether the judgewould ever have issued such an or­

"jer had the defendants nol beenpolice officers.

Although he disagreed with the· .Please see JUDGE, A2S

SUbstance of the ruling, the pros~eeular conceded that Connor"understands the case law, andknows it well," and used it to \"cover everything the Court of Ap- '\peals is likely to ask."

Erwin Chemerinsky, a law pro­fessor at USC, said he expects Dist.,.Ahy. Steve Cooley to appeal thelt1ec:sion. \

"The question on appeal is:~the i ldge crosS the line in consider­rngthe menl~1 proc~~sf:S of the\jury'~tI Chemennsky sa1O.

.. !t is significant thatlhe judge reo·,!' hell on defense aff;d;.~ ..... ils to reaclL

her conclusion, he .6dH1. Rarely ;\0 ...

jndges aj~w rlefense lawvers '.0

~idavlt$ from jurors, Uelmensaid.

"1 think this is going to be ap­oealed. and then an appellate courtcould very well agree with her con­clusion b~t find that it was for theWJ:"n.g reasons."

" ~E",(~Ju~aO!.l=;:;-':'P.!cr~o,-,t~e,"c~t";i~o,!:n'-.!o!.;f,---t!:.h!..'.':e'....!:L~a~w" is laughedat by State Judges.

State Judges always cover-up for thePolice fabricating evidence, and givingperjured testimony to frame innocentpeople. because the State Judges benefitfrom the Police corruption and the Policerobbinq people.

State Judge Connor--to cover up the organ­ized crime by the LAPD and to frame inno­cent people whom they target, claims thecorrupt LAPD detectives have all kindsof U,S. Constitutional Rights to a fairtrial. By comparison the State Judgesclaimed that Petitioner (R.Peernock), who·..,as f raIDed:1. Could NOT present.E..J:l.r evidence in hisdefense;2. Could NOT question~ of the Prosecu-··tor's witnesses;3. Could NOT call anv of his 45 curcialdefense witnesses to testify;4. Could NOT present i!!!Y e vidence or testifyto any evidence which proved he is obviouslyinnocent and was being framed;5. Could NOT refer to evidence proving theLAPD detectives were lying, stole money,and had committed perjurv;6. All of Petitioner's testimony was stop­ped when he referred to the Police Reportwhich proved the LAPD Detectives were lying;7. Denied Peti tioner, for 4 years preceedingthe trial and each day of trial, his right(Faretta) to defend himself;

8. Denied Petitioner his absolute right to fire the bribed defenseattorney, Green, who was bribed by Judge Schwab and Doom to blockall defense and block all investigations, as each of the attorneyswere bribed before Green (see RT A.189-A.193);9. In violation of "Brady" wi thheld a "ton" of exculpatory evidenceunequivocally proving that Petitioner was being framed;

10. Ordered, withheld from the jury the undisputed "fact" thatPetitioner was 24 miles away at the time that LAPD Detective Fisk'sinformant carried out the murder by Fisk's office, besides theState Judges carrying out a "ton" of other U.S. Constitutionalviolations to rig a conviction against Petitioner and to cover upthe organized crime by the LAPD.

JUDGE: LegalExperts CallRuling Rare

"That's very noble," Goldmansaid. "u dgpc:::n't occur very often.Judges don't often admit their er­rors."

While he praised her ruling, hequestioned whether the average de­fenoant could ever count on ajudge's overturning a conviction ona similar basis. His reaction to theruling, he smd, reminded him of his.'reaction to the U.S. Suoreme Coun';)'r:uling that ordered Florida officialsnot to recount ballots in the recentoresidential election because it~ould violate the "equal protection'"guarantees in the'Constitution.

He said he was cheered to seethe court rely on "equal protec­tion," but Questioned whether theruling would b~ "a precursor to awhole series of eoua}·orotection,cases to be stromdy issued bv theU.S. Supreme Coun m the futurede-@ngwithelectioflrights."

"Similarly," he said, "I find it un...likelv that this will be the precursorto a whole series at new approacnestaken in examining Jury verdIctsafler the fact."

LOS ANGELES TIMES

By MAURA DOLANand MITCHELL LAN OSBERGrH.. IES H,\I'F Will I EllS

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Judges RarelyAdmit Error,Experts Say

;~ .!1..-"/ '., :-f-1- ."'.! !

-!II

C •