Monday, December 29, 2014

Clifford Sponsel of Santa Barbara dead at the age of 104, survived by second wife Juliette Cummins

Clifford Sponsel, Clifford W. Sponsel, Juliette Sponsel, Juliette Cummins, Juliette Cobb, Juliette Schott, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, California
Clifford W. Sponsel born in New York June 27, 1910 passed away in Los Angeles, California December 29, 2014 at the age of 104. Cause of death is unknown though most believe he died of felony gold diggery at the hands of his current wife Juliette Cummins Sponsel. Observers couldn't help but notice the similarity to the death of Juliette's previous husband super old and wealthy Frank Anton Schott who died in 1984 under horrifyingly cruel circumstances.

Clifford Sponsel was preceded in death by his father William Charles Sponsel, mother Laura E. Sponsel, first wife Helen Margaret Sponsel and son Hugh Frederic Sponsel. Survived by his son Robert Brian Sponsel, grandchildren William Sponsel, Stephanie Sponsel and his second wife Juliette Sponsel (nee Cummins).

Observers can't help but wonder if Clifford left any money in his will to his son Robert, grandchildren, his beloved philanthropic foundations or did perhaps his wife change his will leaving everything in trusts which she alone controlled just like she did with her previous husband Frank Schott and tried to do to her own mother Mary R Cummins.

Clifford W. Sponsel, gave millions of dollars and much of his time to support Santa Barbara-area charities. He passed away in Los Angeles where he had been living the last few months, according to Ron Gallo, president and CEO of the Santa Barbara Foundation. Previously Sponsel was medically treated in Santa Barbara and even donated heavily to a hospice organization. Observers feel his wife Juliette probably took him to be cared for in Los Angeles Juliette's home town far away from Clifford's friends and family members who might have looked out for his well being.

Sponsel's charitable donations and dedication to service earned him many accolades, including Man of the Year honors from the foundation in 2010. Born in Cambria, New York, Sponsel was raised on a fruit farm where he developed an early affinity for automobiles. He learned to drive as a child, and quickly developed a love for working on machinery.

"These early skills have stood him in good stead both in his career as an executive in major manufacturing firms, and in his hobby as a collector, restorer, and driver of antique autos," according to his biography on the foundation's website. His wife Juliette previously bragged about haunting expensive auto shows in Santa Barbara in her search for very wealthy super old almost dead men to marry and rob blind.

Sponsel attended Northeastern University in Boston and earned his bachelor's degree at Tri-State College in Angola, Indiana, in 1931. After college, Sponsel worked for General Motors Corp., the Glenn L. Martin Company, Bell Aircraft Corp., and the Ryan Aeronautics Corp. He later started an electronics firm called Spectral Dynamics.

Sponsel moved to Santa Barbara in 1954, and almost immediately became a philanthropic leader in the community, serving on the boards and benefiting dozens of local nonprofit organizations.

"He was quite an amazing man, with a long list of accomplishments in industry and philanthropy," Gallo wrote. The foundation's board room is named after Sponsel and his wife, Juliette. As Juliette is now in control of all of Clifford's assets charitable foundations should not expect to see another penny even though Clifford promised to leave them money in his will as per past newsletters.

There is a large mural of hand-painted tiles depicting Sponsel's life that was designed by Juliette and dedicated in April 2012. It's titled “Giving Back: From birth through education to end of life” to reflect Sponsel’s passions, particularly his involvement with Planned Parenthood, the Scholarship Foundation of Santa Barbara and Visiting Nurse & Hospice Care.

No details were available Wednesday regarding funeral or memorial services. Most likely Clifford was instantly cremated so there would be no autopsy or investigation as to his actual cause of death or his condition upon his demise. Juliette will probably not pick up his cremated remains so they will be dumped in a mass pauper grave just like she did with her own mother and ex-husband even though they both had paid for military grave plots.

I made a polite obituary for him here.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSsr=241&GSmcid=48205043&GRid=167904905&

UPDATE 06/23/2015: Just received the death certificate. Just as I predicted above Juliette took Cliff away from his friends and family in Santa Barbara and put him in an assisted living center in a shitty area in the valley. He was at Courtyard Plaza Independent and Assisted Living Center at 6951 Lennox Ave, Van Nuys, California. It was probably the cheapest one she could find. She did the same with her previous ex super old husband. They both had money to be cared for at home or at least in a nice place but no. More money for Juliette.

His cause of death was Alzheimer's disease. Death cert stated he had it for many years. That means all those property transfers, wills are probably void as he was not competent.

He died 12/29/2014 at 9:53 a.m. Juliette gave his body to UCLA donated body program. This way she doesn't have to pay to have him cremated. After they used him for students they cremated him and dumped his body in the ocean along with people who couldn't afford burial or had no relatives. I'm sure Juliette did this as it was free.

His last doctor was Dr Garo Terzian, 333 E Magnolia Blvd #103, Burbank, CA 91502. Cliff had no doctor supervision when he was in the convalescent hospital. Doctor first treated him 11/02/2014. Last time doc saw him was 12/07/2014 weeks before he died. I believe this means there were instructions just to let him die if he gets sick. Don't call a doctor. Don't give him any treatment. Same thing she did to her previous husband but he was sane and healthy. Juliette just told the nurses to tie him to the bed. Frank refused to eat or drink. He kept trying to leave. They tied him down with even more ties and put tubes up his nose to give him food and fluids. He found a way to keep pulling them out and killed himself.

I had thought that Cliff was well liked and had many friends. I thought for sure his family and friends would look out for him. I didn't think they would allow Juliette to take everything he had then dump him in a shitty convalescent hospital to die alone. Turns out I was wrong. The charities liked his money so they pretended to like him. He actually had no friends because he wasn't a nice person. Karma with a capital "J" for Juliette. It will always find you if you are not a nice person.

They spelled his mother's name wrong in the death certificate. Her name was Laura Leeske not Loura Leske.

Clifford Sponsel, death certificate, dead, died, 2014, Juliette Cummins Sponsel, gold digger, santa barbara, california
UPDATE 05/12/15: I had hoped and prayed that my bio mom had changed when she moved to Santa Barbara and married Cliff. I didn't think there was any way his family and friends would allow him to be treated poorly by my bio mom. I was wrong. She was just as evil to poor Cliff and his family. Notice, no funeral for Cliff. No burial, no grave. Below is his family tree.

Clifford William Sponsel, Helen Boston Sponsel, Hugh F Sponsel, Robert Brian Sponsel, Marie J Cummins, William Charles Sponsel, Conrad Sponsel, Kathrine Sponsel, Laura Leeske, Charles Leeske, Mary Leeske, geneology, ancestry, family tree, pedigree, New York, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara
Clifford William Sponsel, Helen Boston Sponsel, Hugh F Sponsel, Robert Brian Sponsel, Marie J Cummins, William Charles Sponsel, Conrad Sponsel, Kathrine Sponsel, Laura Leeske, Charles Leeske, Mary Leeske, geneology, ancestry, family tree, pedigree, New York, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara. Death by gold diggery.

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.

Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, real estate, appraiser, appraisal, instructor, teacher, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brentwood, Bel Air, California, licensed, permitted, single family, condo, pud, hud, fannie mae, freddie mac, uspap, certified, residential, certified resident, apartment building, multi-family, commercial, industrial, expert witness, civil, criminal, orea, dre, insurance, bonded, experienced, bilingual, spanish, english, form, 1004, 2055, land, raw, acreage, vacant, insurance, cost, income approach, market analysis, comparative, theory, appraisal theory, cost approach, sales, matched pairs, plot, plat, map, diagram, photo, photographs, photography, rear, front, street, subject, comparable, sold, listed, active, pending, expired, cancelled, listing, mls, multiple listing service, claw, themls,

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Viktoria Modesta, singer, dancer, artist, not disabled, bionic leg

British singer, dancer, artist, bionic leg, not disabled, new sensation. She reminds me of from "Planet Terror," also the lead in "The saddest song in the world." An ethereal, other worldly quality about her. 

Viktoria Modesta, singer, dancer, artist

Viktoria Modesta, singer, dancer, artist

Viktoria Modesta, singer, dancer, artist

She reminds me of "Cherry" from "Planet Terror." 

"Cherry" from "Planet Terror," Rose McGowen

"Saddest music in the world," Isabella Rossalini as Lady Helen



Viktoria Modesta, wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktoria_Modesta_Moskalova

Viktoria Modesta, Official website
http://www.viktoriamodesta.com/

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.

Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, real estate, appraiser, appraisal, instructor, teacher, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brentwood, Bel Air, California, licensed, permitted, single family, condo, pud, hud, fannie mae, freddie mac, uspap, certified, residential, certified resident, apartment building, multi-family, commercial, industrial, expert witness, civil, criminal, orea, dre, insurance, bonded, experienced, bilingual, spanish, english, form, 1004, 2055, land, raw, acreage, vacant, insurance, cost, income approach, market analysis, comparative, theory, appraisal theory, cost approach, sales, matched pairs, plot, plat, map, diagram, photo, photographs, photography, rear, front, street, subject, comparable, sold, listed, active, pending, expired, cancelled, listing, mls, multiple listing service, claw, themls,

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Judge Carol Boas Goodson, reviews, bias, negative, robingroom, judgepedia, evil

I am gathering information to make a report to the Judicial Commission about Judge Carol Boas Goodson.  In my opinion she has committed the following misconduct.

• Abuse of contempt/sanctions (She sanctioned an attorney $100 for requesting oral argument. Ordering me to pay legal fees of the other side when I should have received the restraining order is an illegal sanction.)
• Bias/appearance of bias toward a particular class (She made fun of an Indian person's accent in court in recorded minutes)
• Bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class (She was certainly biased toward me in her behavior and ruling as per my motion to reconsider evidence and argument)
• Demeanor/decorum (She was extremely rude, cut me off, would not let me continue, said I was annoying before I even started speaking, she said my TRO application was annoying)
• Failure to ensure rights (She did not let me present my case, give oral argument, show evidence, show the video of me being hit. She did not let me record the audio of the hearing even though the law and court website said I am allowed. I did not receive a fair trial. She also did not rule according to the law,  evidence or even her past rulings. You do not have to show physical assault in order to get a restraining order. In my case there was a physical assault.)

I will be posting reviews, comments and reports made by others against Judge Carol Boas Goodson. I found these in books and on the Internet. I will post links to where I found them.

1. From Google book search: Book: Title "California Courts and Judges, Volume 1." Authors: Helen Y. Chang, Kathy Morris Wolf, Kenneth Jams Arnold. Publisher: James Publ. 1998, 1996. http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22carol+boas+goodson%22

Pg 370. GOODSON, Carol. Boas. JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT, Los Angeles County. Appointment/Election: Appointed by Governor Brown Jr. Jan. 11, 1981 (date of oath Jan. 13, 1981), elected in 1982, and reelected in 1988, 1994, and 2000.

Education: J.D. (1970 magna cum laude). Western State Univ. College of Law. Fullerton. (member of school's first graduating class): B.A. (1968, cum laude, Anthropology), Univ. of Calif., Los Angeles (Westwood). (Completed last 2 years at UCLA concurrently with first 2 years at Western State Univ., graduating from both with honors): Attended: Hamilton High School, Los Angeles. Carol Boas Goodson Bar Review (Contracts; Torts; Criminal Law). Fullerton, Calif , and San Diego, Calif., ... Born: April 27, 1947; Los Angeles, Calif.; Married to Lawrence J. Berkowitz, Three children (Caroline, Lauren, Alexander by Jonathan Goodson). Interests: Enjoys children, art, and travel."

"But a lawyer who represents tenants said that in one trial, she treated his client so harshly that the client suffered a seizure right outside the courtroom, collapsed on the floor, and had to be carried out..." Lawyers who represent tenants in disputes with landlords said they think Judge Goodson is "nasty," "heavy-handed," "horrible," and ..."Her fiercest critic among interviewees said, "She doesn't belong [on the bench]. I think she belongs in a prison guarding violent prisoners. That fits her personality. She's...""She is that vicious. Two attorneys recounted instances in which Judge Goodson called them liars in open court even though they said she had no basis for making the accusation. Even defense attorneys, who are much more favorably disposed toward her, agreed that her temperament is "questionable," and "on the strong side," "stern," and "critical." Lawyers said she can be quick to impose stiff sanctions."

Here is a jpg of the snippet of the book. You have to search a few phrases to get the whole section.
Judge Carol Boas Goodson Los Angeles Superior Court photo
A Judge needs to have been admitted to the bar for at least ten years before they can apply to be a Judge, "An official of the judicial branch of government with authority to decide lawsuits and preside over trials brought before the court. The term “judge” may also refer to all judicial officers, including Supreme Court justices. An applicant for appointment as a judge must have been admitted to practice law in California for at least 10 years."

Judge Carol Boas Goodson was admitted to the bar June 1971. She became Judge January 1981. It wasn't quite ten years. I also can't find any legal experience as a lawyer. Why did she instantly become a judge instead of practice as a lawyer? Perhaps she would have learned how to be a fair judge if she practiced law before becoming a judge. I also wonder if she legally was allowed to join the bar when her law school was not accredited. Here are current requirements to apply to the bar. Back then it was probably more difficult. http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Requirements.aspx

I would like to note that her father Maxwell S. Boas founded the law school and was the dean. The school was not accredited until partially in 1998 and maybe fully in 2005. How real is her law school degree if she was the first graduating class of a school founded by her father that was not accredited? That means she could only take the bar in CA and most law firms would not hire her. Why would she go to a new law school that is not accredited? Why not go to UCLA? This school also has a bad history with students dropping out, few passing the bar and many not being able to find jobs. Google the school and you'll see the reviews. You can pull up a 1977 article where Maxwell Boas states they don't care about grades, degrees or transcripts when they accept students. He said they want to make "nuts and bolts attorneys, not supreme court judges." You got that right. He said most applicants were rejected from other schools, are 28 years old and have only gone to two years of college. Did he create this law school for his daughter Carol? And also to make money from people who weren't qualified to go to law school, may not pass the bar and might not get a job? Is this like the Barbizon School of Modeling scam? "Everyone can be a model if you just give us money to take classes on posture!"

And it's in Fullerton in Orange County and San Diego. How did she go to UCLA in Westwood and this school in Orange County, San Diego at the same time? Twice as much schooling with a huge commute? They lived in Cheviot Hills at the time. San Diego is 120 miles south. Orange County is 30 miles south.

I tried to verify her education through year books and school records. She went to Palms Junior High in Los Angeles class B-9 of 1962. Here is her public class photo from a public source. Pretty on the outside.

Carol Boas (Goodson) Palms Junior High School, Los Angeles, California 1962
Alexander Hamilton High School was a senior high school at the time. I see no records for her but that doesn't mean she didn't attend. I also don't see any records of her in the UCLA Yearbooks. I just searched the name and checked the rear index of students for all years she should have been there. Her name is not in any of the yearbooks. This means she wasn't involved in any social activities, sports, clubs or sorority. It also means she didn't take the free graduation photo shoot and did not show up for graduation. Maybe she lacked proper early socialization. That is I'm sure one big reason why ***has been stalking, harassing, threatening, defaming, libeling me and sending guys to hit me. *** dropped out of the eighth grade and never leaves her cave. Even her board of director told me she lacks basic social skills which is why they generally do the training and speaking.

2. "Now if you get a limited civil case downtown, your choices are so limited. If you ding Carol Boas Goodson, the most evil, biased judge I've ever seen, you may get this ding bat."
http://www.underdoglaw.com/showthread.php?183-Judge-Ray-L.-Hart-Dept.-10-Stanley-Mosk-Courthouse

3. "This woman is rich bitch incarnate. All she cares about is her daughter and horses. Her husband is Mark Goodson of tv fame. She is pro large corporate parties and very anti-underdog. She will try to set you up and play games. She is lazy and should not have anything to do with the law.

Given the above, she has a single redeeming quality, while her nebeshy law clerk works up all motions and seems to make all decisions in the cases, she will fax tentatives several days before the hearing and you can submit without appearing. The problem is if you do not submit, once you appear at court you will NOT even speak to the Judge. She will not entertain oral argument unless you push hard or cite a statute requiring oral argument on that particular type of hearing. You will be forced to tell your argument to the law clerk (I think his name is John) who goes back into Chambers to see the Wizard (Judge). The law clerk comes out again and says sorry, tentative stands. I think I saw her sanction an attorney $100 who insisted on oral argument before the Judge. File your 170.6 as to this woman."
http://www.underdoglaw.com/showthread.php?21-Carol-B.-Goodson-LASC-Dept.-75

I'd first like to note that this is 2004. I noticed that she used to handle civil matters. Now she only handles restraining orders. I have a feeling that's like being in waste management or animal control in the City, i.e. the lowest Judge position except for maybe traffic. That may be why she's so mean but the book written in 1998 shows she was just as mean back then when she handled limited civil cases. Of course now that there are no court reporters she is free to say and do anything she likes. She lied in my court order and said I gave oral argument. I was not allowed to give oral argument. I was only permitted to ask one question which she didn't even answer honestly.

Judge Carol Boas Goodson is rich and some have used the other word as well. Here is her list of investments in her 2011 financial disclosure. http://www.fppc.ca.gov/form700/2011/Judges/County/A-M/R_Goodson_Carol_B.pdf 
Notice she owns shares of some truly evil companies, i.e. Monsanto, Phillip Morris, Coca Cola... She also owns bonds for the La Canada school system where attorney Dean Rocco's children go to school. It probably also doesn't help that he looks exactly like her nephews one of which is a lawyer. Dean Rocco also used to be an intern at LA Superior Court for another judge.

The addresses of her daughters homes are on the bottom, so is her current home address at 541 S. Rossmore, 90020 because she has a financial interest in the properties. Her father Maxwell S. Boas was a wealthy lawyer and then she married Jonathan Goodson the son of Mark Goodson who made money in the TV game show business. They divorced many years ago. In fact Judge Carol Boas Goodson has sued her husband a few times. She filed for divorce in 1984. Jonathan has a new wife Nancy and daughter who are the ones into horses. Judge Carol Boas Goodson is currently married to attorney Lawrence J Berkowitz. Just wanted to get the little facts straight. I grew up in Beverly Hills so I've run into the family before. Her daughter is Caroline Boas Goodson also an attorney. Judge Carol Boas Goodson was born April 27, 1947. Her daughter was born October 3, 1977 so you can tell them apart. This is all public information found on the Internet.

4. Minutes from the proceedings included in the appeal of R B v. William Mears B222991. FTR I am not friends with R B. I don't even know her. I found her case researching for my appeal. Everything I used is only found in the public record of her appeal. She and I have nothing to do with each other.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1575708.html 

Judge Carol Boas Goodson made fun of the woman's accent. That is racial discrimination, bias toward a particular class, improper court room demeanor/decourum, failure to ensure rights. R B won the appeal. Three appeals court judges agreed that Judge Carol Boas Goodson did not rule according to the evidence, failed to ensure her rights. They reversed the order. I mentioned this case specifically in  my hearing and the Judge said "I don't remember it." I then stated that three appeals court Judges unanimously reversed her order and the case is identical to mine. Then Judge Carol Boas Goodson said "it was an  unpublished opinion. It's uncitable." Who cares. Three appeals court judges reversed her order. And that is not the only orders that have been reversed. There are many. I may post a few of the  more outrageous ones later.

Go to the link and read the minutes included in the public opinion. Here is a summary of the appeal.

"Plaintiff and appellant Radha Bharadwaj appeals from a judgment of the superior court denying her petition under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 1 for an injunction preventing harassment against her by respondent William Mears.   She further appeals the grant of attorney fees to Mears.   Bharadwaj contends that during the hearing conducted on her section 527.6 petition, the trial judge exhibited bias against her, in part based on her ethnicity, in violation of her constitutional due process right to a fair hearing.   Bharadwaj further argues that the trial judge engaged in acts of judicial misconduct and committed errors of law that deprived her of a fair trial.   We do not reach the question whether Bharadwaj's constitutional due process rights were violated because we conclude that a new trial is warranted under section 657 due to irregularities in the section 527.6 hearing and the court's erroneous exclusion of evidence.   Because we vacate the judgment, the attorney fees award in favor of Mears is necessarily vacated as well.   We further exercise our discretion to remand the matter for a hearing in front of a new judge.

Bharadwaj filed a “motion for a new trial and/or in the alternative for reconsideration” alleging that she “was not given a fair opportunity to present her case,” and that she and her counsel “had to fight through a one-sided onslaught of hostility, impenetrable skepticism, sarcasm, mockery, insult and interruption from the court.”

Bharadwaj also contended that on at least three occasions during the hearing, the court “attempted to mimic in a mocking fashion the ethnic accent of [Bharadwaj], a foreign-born naturalized U.S. citizen.”

Only a few minutes into the trial, Bharadwaj's counsel objected, “Your Honor, I declare a mistrial.   You are not letting me continue.   I want this on the record.   I ask for a mistrial.   You know, you have interrupted me at every single stage.”   A few minutes later, Bharadwaj's counsel again protested:  “Your Honor, I haven't had a chance to finish.   Every time I say something, you have cut me off.   I would like to try my own case.”

I'll add more reviews later. I am truly shocked after this appeal that Judge Carol Boas Goodson is still on the bench. I did notice that no one has run against her in a long time. While she is paid $179,000 a year being a Judge for restraining orders probably is the lowest gig in the court house. I bet she was demoted because of her extremely bad behavior. Maybe they hope she'll quit. I bet she originally aspired to be a Federal District Court Judge or maybe an Appeals or Supreme Court Judge. She's just a judge handling restraining orders. Her rulings have nothing to do with the law or evidence. She favors city, county entities.

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.

Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, real estate, appraiser, appraisal, instructor, teacher, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brentwood, Bel Air, California, licensed, permitted, single family, condo, pud, hud, fannie mae, freddie mac, uspap, certified, residential, certified resident, apartment building, multi-family, commercial, industrial, expert witness, civil, criminal, orea, dre, insurance, bonded, experienced, bilingual, spanish, english, form, 1004, 2055, land, raw, acreage, vacant, insurance, cost, income approach, market analysis, comparative, theory, appraisal theory, cost approach, sales, matched pairs, plot, plat, map, diagram, photo, photographs, photography, rear, front, street, subject, comparable, sold, listed, active, pending, expired, cancelled, listing, mls, multiple listing service, claw, themls,

Judge Carol Boas Goodson, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, reviews, appeals, reversed decisions

Judge Carol Boas Goodson. I've been doing research for my motion to reconsider restraining order and have uncovered some mind boggling things about Judge Carol Boas Goodson. She treated another woman trying to get a restraining order the same way she treated me. I was under the assumption that Judge Carol Boas Goodson just had a bad day. Based on this appeal and other reviews of Judge Carol Boas Goodson, she has a very poor history when it comes to treating people fairly, allowing people to present evidence and ruling according to the law and evidence. I can't believe this Judge has been able to get away treating people like this for all these years.

 
Anyway below is the opinion in the case R B v Mears. I found it on FindLaw case law. There are minutes from courtroom testimony which show just how incredibly rude and out right mean Judge Carol Boas Goodson is to people. I really find this behavior shocking. I know I have never been treated so rudely and poorly by a judge in my life. I am always polite and professional with judges. Judge Carol Boas Goodson needs to retire.
 
Below is from the original court ruling by Judge Carol Boas Goodson.
Hrng on Pet n Prohibit Harassm ent - TRO is denied.


0 2 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 0 at 08: 30 am in Departm ent 75, Carol Boas Goodson, Presiding
MOTI ON - ATTORNEY FEES - Grant ed
0 2 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 0 at 08: 30 am in Departm ent 75, Carol Boas Goodson, Presiding
Court Order - Com plet ed
0 1 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 0 at 08: 30 am in Departm ent 75, Carol Boas Goodson, Presiding
Below is the amicus brief. 

RADHA BHARADWAJ v. WILLIAM MEARS

 
 
RADHA BHARADWAJ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM MEARS, Defendant and Respondent.
 
 
B222991
-- July 27, 2011

Filed opinion.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
introduction
Plaintiff and appellant Radha Bharadwaj appeals from a judgment of the superior court denying her petition under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 1 for an injunction preventing harassment against her by respondent William Mears.   She further appeals the grant of attorney fees to Mears.   Bharadwaj contends that during the hearing conducted on her section 527.6 petition, the trial judge exhibited bias against her, in part based on her ethnicity, in violation of her constitutional due process right to a fair hearing.   Bharadwaj further argues that the trial judge engaged in acts of judicial misconduct and committed errors of law that deprived her of a fair trial.   We do not reach the question whether Bharadwaj's constitutional due process rights were violated because we conclude that a new trial is warranted under section 657 due to irregularities in the section 527.6 hearing and the court's erroneous exclusion of evidence.   Because we vacate the judgment, the attorney fees award in favor of Mears is necessarily vacated as well.   We further exercise our discretion to remand the matter for a hearing in front of a new judge.
factual and procedural background
Bharadwaj and Mears are next-door neighbors in a condominium project with two detached units;  Bharadwaj and her husband live in the rear unit, and Mears lives with his girlfriend Odette Leonelli in the front unit.   Bharadwaj and Leonelli were once friends, but beginning in 2003 their relationship deteriorated over a number of property disputes, such as Leonelli's barking dog, overgrowth of foliage from Leonelli's property onto Bharadwaj's property, parking issues, and driveway access.   Mears apparently entered the picture in 2007.
In March 2009, Bharadwaj sought and was granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Mears based on an affidavit she submitted documenting a number of alleged incidents of harassment beginning in 2007.   As required by section 527.6, a hearing was set for several weeks after the date the TRO was issued, the purpose of which was to determine whether a permanent injunction should be issued.   At the outset of the hearing on April 10, 2009, the trial court initially assigned to the case suggested that the parties engage in mediation of their dispute.   The parties agreed to a continuance of the hearing to July 23, 2009, while they engaged in mediation.   The parties stipulated to a stay in enforcement of the TRO conditioned on all parties adhering to the terms of the TRO “in a reciprocal manner,” even though the TRO was directed only at Mears.2  The parties subsequently stipulated to several further continuances of the hearing, with the terms of the TRO as ordered by the court on April 10, 2009 remaining in full force and effect, pending the evidentiary hearing.
The section 527.6 hearing ultimately took place on January 22, 2010, before a different judge.   Bharadwaj's counsel called two witnesses – Mears and Bharadwaj – and attempted to call five other witnesses but the court excluded the witnesses' testimony on the grounds that it was either speculative, repetitive, or irrelevant.   The court further ruled that incidents prior to 2009 were irrelevant for purposes of determining whether a permanent injunction should issue.   The court denied the petition for an injunction.
Bharadwaj filed a “motion for a new trial and/or in the alternative for reconsideration” alleging that she “was not given a fair opportunity to present her case,” and that she and her counsel “had to fight through a one-sided onslaught of hostility, impenetrable skepticism, sarcasm, mockery, insult and interruption from the court.”   Bharadwaj accused the court of prejudging her case, and of unfairly preventing her from calling additional witnesses, introducing rebuttal evidence, and properly examining and cross-examining witnesses.   Bharadwaj also contended that on at least three occasions during the hearing, the court “attempted to mimic in a mocking fashion the ethnic accent of [Bharadwaj], a foreign-born naturalized U.S. citizen.”   Bharadwaj further alleged that the court committed legal error in requiring proof of actual physical violence or explicit death threats as a condition of granting the injunction, and in excluding evidence of incidents prior to 2009 that were necessary to establish a pattern of harassment by Mears.   Bharadwaj did not request that the judge recuse herself, or request that the matter be assigned to a different judge for a new trial.
Construing Bharadwaj's motion as a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the section 527.6 hearing “was not a trial,” the court denied it, finding that it was procedurally deficient, and in any event, “has not stated any new facts, circumstances or law.”   The court granted Mears' motion for attorney fees in the amount of $22,700.
It appears that the court never entered judgment in favor of Mears.   Bharadwaj filed a notice of appeal from three unsigned minute orders denying the petition for an injunction, notifying counsel that the motion for a new trial would be treated as a motion for reconsideration, and denying Bharadwaj's motion for reconsideration and granting Mears'attorney fees motion.   Unsigned minute orders are not appealable orders.  (Palazzi v. Air Cargo Terminals, Inc. (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 190, 192;  § 581d.)   However, in the interests of justice and to avoid delay, we deem the minute order denying the petition for an injunction prohibiting harassment to incorporate a judgment of dismissal and will treat the notice of appeal as applying to that judgment.  (Nystrom v. First Nat. Bank of Fresno (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 759, 762–763.)
discussion
I. Claim of Bias In Violation of Constitutional Due Process
On appeal, Bharadwaj argues that her federal constitutional rights to due process were violated because the trial judge was biased against her based on her ethnicity, as evidenced by the judge's “derisive mocking” of her accent on several occasions when repeating the phrase “focused malevolence” that Bharadwaj used to describe the manner in which Mears allegedly glared at her.   Bharadwaj also suggests that other conduct by the court during the section 527.6 hearing – including showing hostility towards her counsel and improperly interfering with her counsel's questioning of witnesses, and argumentative questioning of Bharadwaj and ridiculing of her testimony –demonstrated that the judge was biased against her, in violation of her constitutional rights to due process.
“ ‘A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.’   [Citation.]”  (People v. Freeman (2010) 47 Cal.4th 993, 1000 (Freeman ).)   The federal due process clause requires reversal based on judicial bias where there exists “ ‘ “the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker [that] is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” ’ ”  (Freeman, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 996, quoting Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009) 556 U.S. _, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 2257.) 3  It is only “the exceptional case presenting extreme facts where a due process violation will be found.”  (Freeman, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1005.)
It is not necessary for us to decide whether Bharadwaj's constitutional due process rights were violated as a result of the trial judge's alleged bias against her.  “It is a well-settled rule that if statutory relief is adequate, it is unnecessary and inappropriate for a court to reach constitutional issues.”  (Americans for Safe Access v. County of Alameda (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1295;  see Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 1, 17, fn.   13 [“As a prudential matter, we routinely decline to address constitutional questions when it is unnecessary to reach them.”].) Such judicial restraint is warranted here, because, as further discussed below, we have concluded that a new trial is mandated under section 657 and that a new judge should preside over the retrial.
II. Errors Alleged to Justify a New Trial Under Section 657
We now address the alleged “irregularities” in the proceedings and errors of law committed by the court, of which Bharadwaj complained in her motion for a new trial pursuant to section 657.  (Estate of Friedman (1918) 178 Cal. 27, 39 [“On a motion for a new trial, upon the ground of irregularities in the proceedings of the court, we are dealing with those irregularities, and it is immaterial whether they result from bias and prejudice or not.”];  Develop–Amatic Engineering v. Republic Mortgage Co. (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 143, 150.)
A. Court's Error in Refusing to Consider Motion for a New Trial
After Bharadwaj filed a “motion for a new trial and/or in the alternative for reconsideration,” the court issued a minute order stating that “the court will be treating [the] motion as a motion for reconsideration as the hearing on 1/22/10 was not a trial.”   Later, the court considered the motion only as a motion for reconsideration and then denied it, finding that the motion was defective in failing to comply with the specific requirements for a motion for reconsideration, and further did not state any new facts, circumstances, or law.
Bharadwaj contends, and Mears concedes, that the trial court erred in refusing to consider her motion a motion for a new trial based on the rationale that the evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 527.6 was not a trial.   We agree that the trial court wrongly concluded that a motion for a new trial may not be taken from a section 527.6 hearing.  Section 527.6 sets forth a procedure “for what is in effect a highly expedited lawsuit on the issue of harassment” (Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners' Assn. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 719, 732 (Schraer )), and “[t]he role of the court in a section 527.6 hearing does not differ from its role in other trial settings where the court is the trier of fact.”  (Ensworth v. Mullvain (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1105, 1110.)   Accordingly, a party to a section 527.6 hearing may move for a new trial, and the court should have construed Bharadwaj's motion as such.
We now turn to the question whether the motion for a new trial should have been granted, examining the entire record and making an independent assessment of whether there were grounds for granting the motion.  (ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 825, 832.)   Bharadwaj argued that a new trial was warranted due to “[i]rregularity in the proceedings of the court ․ by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial.” (§ 657, subd. (1).)  Bharadwaj alleged numerous acts of judicial misconduct that prevented Bharadwaj from fairly presenting her case, including the court's prejudging of the case;  its “assumption of the role of de facto counsel for [Mears],” including by aggressively cross-examining Bharadwaj and repeatedly expressing skepticism of her testimony;  its constant interruptions of counsel preventing him from eliciting testimony from Bharadwaj and from effectively cross-examining Mears;  and the refusal to allow Bharadwaj to call several witnesses.   Bharadwaj further argued that a new trial should be granted based on the trial court's “error in law” in improperly excluding evidence of events prior to 2009 to show a “course of conduct” justifying a permanent injunction under section 527.6. (§ 657, subd. (7);  § 527.6, subd. (b)(3).)
B. Irregularities in the Section 527.6 Proceeding
The purpose of a section 527.6 hearing is to determine whether the plaintiff can prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she is the victim of harassment justifying a permanent injunction against the harasser. (§ 527.6, subd. (d).)  Section 527.6 defines harassment as “unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.   The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff.” (§ 527.6, subd. (b).)  A “course of conduct” is further defined as “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means.” (§ 527.6, subd. (b)(3).)
From our review of the transcript of the section 527.6 hearing, we conclude that there were indeed “irregularities” in the manner in which the court conducted the proceeding that interfered with Bharadwaj's right to a fair hearing on the question whether Mears engaged in a willful and harassing course of conduct that reasonably caused her emotional distress.
At the outset, we recognize the significant leeway that courts have to control the conduct of a trial.  (People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1108.)   In particular, we note that section 527.6 expressly authorizes courts to make an “independent inquiry” during a hearing to determine whether an injunction prohibiting harassment should be issued. (§ 527.6. subd. (d).)  Further, “[m]ere expressions of opinion by a trial judge based on actual observation of the witnesses and evidence in the courtroom” should not be the basis for reversing a judgment.  (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1111.)   However, in this hearing, the court exceeded the bounds of reasonable conduct for a judge seeking to exercise control of the proceedings and reach a fair and efficient result.
First, the record strongly suggests that the trial judge prejudged the case.   (McVey v. McVey (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 120, 123 [“A trial judge should not prejudge the issues but should keep an open mind until all of the evidence is presented to him.”].) In Murr v. Murr, a non-jury divorce proceeding, the judge was found to have committed judicial misconduct in prejudging the case.   (Murr v. Murr (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 511, 521 (Murr ).)   Soon after the trial started, the judge stated:  “How much more time are we going to waste on this?” and “You both know what is going to happen, so let us get through as quickly as possible.”  (Murr, supra, 87 Cal.App.2d at p. 517.)   He proceeded to make numerous comments to the plaintiff's attorney about his wasting the court's time, including:  “Well, it seems to me you must be getting paid by the hour, and want to waste as much of the Court's time as possible”;  “I suggest that if you have any evidence to prove your complaint that you put it on, and not waste so much time”;  “Have you any evidence in support of your complaint?”;   and “[C]annot you try the case without wasting so much time?   This case should have been tried in 10 or 20 minutes, just like an ordinary divorce case.”  (Id. at p. 517.)
The trial judge here seemed similarly predisposed to rule against Bharadwaj based on a preconceived notion that the case involved run-of-the-mill property disputes between neighbors, as opposed to harassment that deserved to be enjoined.   At the very outset of the hearing, when counsel for Mears advised the court that he had witnesses who would not arrive until the afternoon, the court responded, “I have a feeling we'll finish by morning.”   Before any witness took the stand, the court questioned Bharadwaj's counsel narrowly about some of the incidents that took place, and immediately characterized them as “very small.”
When Bharadwaj's counsel attempted to examine his first witness, Mears, the court interrupted him before he could even finish his first question:
“Mr. Cohen:  Okay. Mr. Mears, I just wanted to –
“The Court:  I want to hear about the road rage.   I don't want to hear about the fact that the neighbors don't like each other.   So many of my cases are cases where people don't like each other.   I want to know how a quasi-criminal event should evolve out of the two neighbors who don't like each other.   I want to hear why your client is legitimately in fear of her life.   Just being harassed is not grounds –
“(Court and counsel are talking over one another.)
“Mr. Cohen:  Okay. It is not how I planned to start.
“The Court:  Well, you know, I think that is where this case is getting off record.   There has been a lot of attorney fees being generated for issues I don't like.   What is the property line?   Who owns what?  ․ Where is the parking?”
The record suggests the trial judge had already made up her mind before the testimony even began that the case was a waste of time.   The court interrupted Bharadwaj's counsel repeatedly during his attempted examination of Mears, making statements such as:  “You have wasted this court's time so far for 20 minutes, and I haven't heard one piece of evidence”;  “I think the record is pretty clear that you have proven nothing.   You haven't proved anything yet”;  and “I think the record reflects you are going for more than an hour and you haven't elicited any information that would support your case.”   As in Murr, the court's many “ill-advised and unnecessary comments with respect to wasting [her] time establish definitely that [she] did not consider that the issues presented by plaintiff were worthy of consideration.”  (Murr, supra, 87 Cal.App.2d at p. 520.)
When Bharadwaj took the stand to submit to direct examination, the court essentially took over the examination, questioning her in a one-sided manner and characterizing her testimony to fit the court's view that Bharadwaj's request for an injunction was motivated solely by minor property disputes, rather than a fear of continued harassment.   We acknowledge that “ ‘ “if a judge desires to be further informed on certain points mentioned in the testimony it is entirely proper for him to ask proper questions for the purpose of developing all the facts in regard to them.   Considerable latitude is allowed the judge in this respect as long as a fair trial is indicated [to both parties].” ’ ”  (Conservatorship of Pamela J. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 807, 827.)   Moreover, in a nonjury trial a judge may have greater leeway to examine witnesses than in a jury trial, and particularly so here, given the court's authority under section 527.6 to “make an independent inquiry.” (§ 527.6, subd. (d).)  But the inquiry must be reasonable and respectful.   Here, the record reflects that the court repeatedly cut off Bharadwaj, belittled her, and mischaracterized her testimony while questioning her in a way that was not consistent with permitting her to present her case.
After permitting Bharadwaj's counsel to ask only three questions of Bharadwaj, the court assumed the role of a cross-examiner focused on getting Bharadwaj to admit that Mears had never physically harmed or explicitly threatened to harm her, which the trial court seemed to view as a prerequisite for issuing the injunction.   In response to the court's questions, Bharadwaj attempted to testify about an incident that culminated in what she considered “road rage” against her by Mears.   She testified that the incident began when she pulled out of her driveway and saw Mears standing on the nearby sidewalk, glaring at her.   When the court asked her what she meant, Bharadwaj stated that he was “looking with focused, monovalent eyes on me.”  (Obviously, the court reporter transcribed the word “monovalent” a term that makes no sense in this context, in lieu of “malevolent,” and did so throughout the hearing.)   The court then stated, “He looked at you in a mean way.”   Bharadwaj attempted to explain that “it goes beyond that,” but the court did not permit her to elaborate, and instead asked Bharadwaj, “Has he ever physically harmed you?   Yes or no.”   Bharadwaj then testified that Mears' car soon caught up to her several blocks away, and Mears gunned his engine, sped into the wrong lane, and intentionally cut her off, coming within a foot of her car and causing her to panic.   The court was dismissive of this testimony, following it up with the question, “Now, but the entire time you have known him ․ there has never been any physical contact between you?”
Bharadwaj attempted to testify about another incident with Mears that grew out of a disagreement over driveway access and allegedly escalated to the point that Mears was swearing and yelling at her and attempted to enter her garage.   However, the court repeatedly interrupted her before she could finish explaining what had happened, mischaracterizing her testimony as establishing only that “there was an argument over access to a parking area that you initiated verbal contact with the respondent and he responded by saying, ‘I can't hear you,’ which you interpreted as being monovalent focus.”   When Bharadwaj attempted to explain that there was more to the incident than that, because Mears continued to swear and yell at her and tried to come into her garage, the judge commented, “Again over the parking?” and made it clear she wanted to move on to another topic.   Bharadwaj managed to come back to the event to add that ten minutes after she shut the garage door before Mears could enter, she went outside to take out the trash, and found Mears still there, yelling.   The court responded, “Yelling that he owned the property and he has a right to the parking?”
When Bharadwaj's counsel attempted to interject a question and asked Bharadwaj why she was afraid of Mears, the court immediately interrupted before Bharadwaj could answer, stating, “He has never touched you.   He has never sworn at you.   He has never threatened you and the most he has done is give you a monovalent look and the finger when you were arguing about the parking situation.”   Despite counsel's objection to this mischaracterization of Bharadwaj's testimony, the court continued:  “The point is, ma‘am, your argument really relates to neighborhood issues and particularly parking, and blocking the driveway.”   Repeatedly, the court cut off counsel's attempt to elicit testimony on other incidents and the reasons Bharadwaj was afraid of Mears, inserting comments such as, “The one incident that was described is absolutely meaningless.   We know that the argument is over parking spaces in the neighborhood dispute and monovalent looks for her psychological fear.”   The court added:  “You are neighbors, ma‘am.   If I gave you a TRO, I can only shudder at the thought how you would be calling the police to have him arrested every time you interpret a look from him as monovalent focus.”   Looking at the examination of Bharadwaj as a whole, we conclude that she was not given a fair opportunity to present her case for an injunction preventing harassment.
Relying on the principle that “a judge's examination of a witness may not be assigned as error on appeal where no objection was made when the questioning occurred” (People v. Corrigan (1957) 48 Cal.2d 551, 556), Mears contends that Bharadwaj failed to object when the court took over the questioning and thus has forfeited the claimed error.   We do not find such a forfeiture here.   Only a few minutes into the trial, Bharadwaj's counsel objected, “Your Honor, I declare a mistrial.   You are not letting me continue.   I want this on the record.   I ask for a mistrial.   You know, you have interrupted me at every single stage.”   A few minutes later, Bharadwaj's counsel again protested:  “Your Honor, I haven't had a chance to finish.   Every time I say something, you have cut me off.   I would like to try my own case.”   In addition, counsel frequently objected to the court's mischaracterizations of Bharadwaj's testimony.   Given the tenor of these proceedings, inserting objections each time the court interrupted and took over the questioning would have been futile.  (People v. Sturm (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1218, 1237;  Haluck v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 994, 1007.)
The trial court's repeated criticisms of Bharadwaj's counsel further prevented counsel from properly putting on Bharadwaj's case.  (See Murr, supra, 87 Cal.App.2d at pp. 517–521.)   To be sure, counsel's questions were sometimes rather far afield, and thus it was not unreasonable for the court to steer counsel back to the conduct constituting a pattern of harassment.  (People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1111 [“When an attorney engages in improper behavior, such as ignoring the court's instructions or asking inappropriate questions, it is within a trial court's discretion to reprimand the attorney, even harshly, as the circumstances require.”].) However, the court was gratuitously harsh, making statements such as, “Counsel, I am really surprised at the job you are doing”;  “I am kind of shocked [at your questioning] to tell you the truth”;  “You have to be kidding me, counsel”;  and “You certainly did a good job of making [Mears'] case so that his attorney really doesn't have to get him on direct.”   As the proceedings continued to deteriorate, the court told counsel, “You can't put words in [Bharadwaj's] mouth.   You have done a good job of that.”   Bharadwaj's counsel responded, “Is there anything at all good you can say about me?”   The court replied, “No,” at which point counsel renewed his request for a mistrial.   The court's treatment of counsel throughout the hearing was “the antithesis of judicial decorum and courtesy.”   (Haluck v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc., supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 1003.)
The trial judge's prejudgment of the case, her improper questioning and mischaracterizing of Bharadwaj's testimony, and her pattern of hostility towards Bharadwaj's counsel constituted judicial misconduct and “irregularities” in the proceedings.4
Error in Law
Bharadwaj also contends that a new trial must be granted because the court committed an “error in law” in improperly excluding evidence of harassing incidents prior to 2009. (§ 657, subd. (7).) 5  We review the trial court's exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion.  (Tudor Ranches, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1431.)
Section 527.6 directs the court to “receive any testimony that is relevant” at the hearing on a petition for a permanent injunction against harassment. (§ 527.6, subd. (d).)  As discussed above, under section 527.6, harassment may consist of “a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose,” and that reasonably causes the plaintiff to suffer substantial emotional distress. (§ 527.6, subd. (b).)  A course of conduct is further defined as “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose.” (§ 527.6, subd. (b)(3).)   Thus, in a section 527.6 hearing, the court is “required to receive relevant testimony” regarding the alleged “course of conduct,” “subject only to such reasonable limitations as are necessary to conserve the expeditious nature of the harassment procedure set forth by ․ section 527.6.”  (Schraer, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 730, 733, fn. 6.)
The incidents forming the basis for Bharadwaj's application for a restraining order allegedly first began in 2007.   Despite counsel's argument that he needed to establish a pattern of harassment prior to the date the TRO was entered in March 2009 and Mears' harassing conduct was enjoined, and despite the fact that many of the alleged instances of harassment took place in 2007 and 2008, the trial court arbitrarily limited the evidence regarding instances of harassment to the three months prior to the date the TRO was entered.
Mears suggests that during Bharadwaj's testimony, the trial court withdrew its rulings excluding evidence of incidents prior to 2009.   At the outset of Bharadwaj's testimony, however, when she attempted to testify to intimidation and threats by Mears for the two years prior to the March 3, 2009 incident, the judge told Bharadwaj that she did not want to hear about events before 2009.   Although the court let Bharadwaj testify about two incidents in 2008, the court subsequently stated it was “not interested” in testimony about events in 2007.   Mears thus incorrectly asserts that the court made an “obvious change” in its ruling excluding evidence of incidents prior to 2009.
The trial court's ruling hampered Bharadwaj's ability to prove a pattern of harassment or “course of conduct.”   We conclude that the trial court committed an “error in law” in categorically excluding evidence of these prior events to establish a pattern of harassing conduct, without any articulation of a reasonable basis for such a ruling.
Taken individually, it is possible that none of the above acts of judicial misconduct or the error in excluding evidence of incidents prior to 2009 would constitute an error that “materially affect[ed] the substantial rights” of Bharadwaj such that a new trial was necessary. (§ 657).   However, “the cumulative effect of the trial judge's conduct requires reversal.”  (People v. Sturm, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1243.)  “The trial of a case should not only be fair in fact, but it should also appear to be fair.   And where the contrary appears, it shocks the judicial instinct to allow the judgment to stand.”   (Pratt v. Pratt (1903) 141 Cal. 247, 252.)   We therefore reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the superior court for a new trial before a different judge. (§ 187;  Hernandez v. Paicius (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 452, 455, disapproved on another ground in Freeman, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1006, fn. 4.) In doing so, we do not mean to suggest that the new judge should not impose “such reasonable limitations as are necessary to conserve the expeditious nature” of a section 527.6 proceeding.  (Schraer, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 733, fn. 6.) We also do not mean to suggest that Bharadwaj is or is not entitled to an injunction.   We only conclude that both parties must be treated fairly before a ruling on that issue is made.6
disposition
The judgment is reversed and remanded for a new trial, with directions to the presiding judge of the superior court to assign the matter to a different judge.   Each party shall each bear its own costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
We concur:
FOOTNOTES
1.  FN1. All references to code sections herein are to the California Code of Civil Procedure.
2.  FN2. After agreeing to the stay, Bharadwaj sought to disqualify the original judge under sections 170.1, 170.3, and 170.6, contending that the court was biased against Bharadwaj and conducted a de facto settlement conference without her consent.   The judge denied the motion for disqualification, finding that it lacked merit, but ultimately recused herself in “the interest of justice” because she deemed it essential that the parties to a restraining order proceeding perceive they have been provided a full and fair hearing.
3.  FN3. California law calls for the disqualification of a judge based on the mere appearance of bias (§ 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(A)(iii);  Freeman, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1001), and thus imposes standards to protect against judicial bias that are more rigorous and expansive than the “ ‘ “constitutional floor” ’ ” set by the due process clause.  (Freeman, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1005.)   Therefore, most disputes over disqualification may be resolved under California's statutory law and “ ‘without resort to the Constitution.’ ”  (Ibid.) Here, however, Bharadwaj never sought the disqualification of the trial judge under section 170.1 based on the appearance of bias.
4.  FN4. While Bharadwaj complains of other conduct by the judge, such as refusing to permit other witnesses to testify, we find that Bharadwaj has not carried her burden of showing any misconduct on the judge's part in such rulings.
5.  FN5. Bharadwaj also asserts that the trial court erroneously interpreted section 527.6 to require proof of actual physical violence or the express threat of violence in order for an injunction against harassment to be issued.   As Mears points out, Bharadwaj failed to timely request a Statement of Decision (§ 632).   In the absence of a Statement of Decision, even if the record of the hearing indicates that the trial court was applying the wrong legal standard, we must assume that the trial court corrected any error and applied the proper legal standard in denying Bharadwaj's request for an injunction.  (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 269.)
6.  FN6. Because we necessarily reverse the grant of attorney's fees in favor of Mears as well, we need not reach Bharadwaj's contention that the award was otherwise erroneous.
WILLHITE, J.
EPSTEIN, P. J.SUZUKAWA, J.

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.

Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, real estate, appraiser, appraisal, instructor, teacher, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brentwood, Bel Air, California, licensed, permitted, single family, condo, pud, hud, fannie mae, freddie mac, uspap, certified, residential, certified resident, apartment building, multi-family, commercial, industrial, expert witness, civil, criminal, orea, dre, insurance, bonded, experienced, bilingual, spanish, english, form, 1004, 2055, land, raw, acreage, vacant, insurance, cost, income approach, market analysis, comparative, theory, appraisal theory, cost approach, sales, matched pairs, plot, plat, map, diagram, photo, photographs, photography, rear, front, street, subject, comparable, sold, listed, active, pending, expired, cancelled, listing, mls, multiple listing service, claw, themls,

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Geoffrey Palmer, G.H. Palmer Associates, arson Dawud Abdulwali, Timothy Joseph Roston, Los Angeles Real Estate Developer, Arson, Faux-Italian complexes - Mary Cummins, Real Estate Appraiser

Geoffrey Palmer, Geoffrey Harrison Palmer, Daniel Saxon Palmer, Daniel Saxon Wiesinger, Armand Wiesinger, Bella Wiesinger, Doris Weintraub, Anne Emerich, Grant Henri Palmer, William Palmer, Michael Palmer, Robert Palmer, Fia Palmer, real estate, los angeles, architect, builder, developer, orsini, apartment, arson, wood, fire, cheap, lawsuits, california, complaints, criminal, record
Geoffrey Palmer, Anne Palmer

UPDATE: Alleged arsonist caught. 56 year old Dawud Abdulwali birth name Timothy Joseph Roston. Born April 23, 1959. 6'5" 215 lbs black male. He has a criminal history here in LA from 1990 to the present, see below. Based on what I see he is a confused, misdirected, drifter with no real job who identifies as an animal, environment, poor people activist who converted to Islam or at least changed his name to an Islamic sounding name. He desires money,women, nice cars and sometimes seems to force sex based on his rap sheet. He was married to Japanese woman who divorced after what appears to be a kidnapping, forced oral copulation charge which was dropped, see below. Here is LA Times article.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-arrest-da-vinci-arson-20150527-story.html

His birth name most likely Timothy Joseph Roston. He has criminal rap sheet in both names from 1990 to today. Below are two links to two profiles which might be but I have no idea if they are him. Age, height, name, location....seem to match. He is an animal, environment, poverty activist. He grew up in Inglewood. He worked with Japanese artists here in LA, married a japanese person then got divorced. He worked with a DJ friend of his here in LA who then went to Japan. They seem to hang out in Japan together. The other guy had an American name then changed it to something similar to Dawud's name. I think "Abdul" is generic. I think they are Americans who got involved in religion based on their facebook pages. One friend whom Dawud seems to copy and idolize is Muhammad Abdul Salaam real name Curtis Harmon. "May 20, 2014 Curtis Harmon —> Muhammad Abdul Salaam May 20, 2015.  One year ago today I entered Islam. Allaahu Akbar!!!" They are both into skid row rights, black rights, music, dj, travel, Japan. I think Dawud's thinking may have gotten a little radical. I bet he had an American name. Can't find the name change yet. He supposedly worked for DTOURZ which is tourism. Went to Penn state which I doubt. He has a few profiles with odd info. His own description of himself in his Google+ page 

I'M JUST A SIMPLE MAN WHO ENJOYS FOOD, FUN, FISH, FASHION, FRIENDS, FOX, FISHER, FAMAR, FANTASYS    FETISH, FOREIGN FILMS, FUBU, PHAT PHARM, & FRISKY FINE FREAKS...

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/dawud-abdul-wali/24/9b/175

https://www.facebook.com/dawud.abdulwali

Some civil cases I found. He won a small claims for about $3,500 against a rent a car, was divorced from Japanese person, was evicted. All other media reporting this is the guy. I see him in Japan, Australia. He's supposedly in entertainment.

ABDUL-WALI DAWUDSmall Claims05/11/2011Inglewood Courthouse
ABDUL-WALI DAWUDSummary Dissolution09/17/2004Stanley Mosk Courthouse
ABDUL-WALI DAWUDSmall Claims12/09/2010Inglewood Courthouse
ABDUL-WALI DAWUDU.D. RESIDENTIAL (Limited)01/25/2012Stanley Mosk Courthouse


He has three items on his criminal record. I'll just post what he was convicted of as Dawud AbdulWali.

05/2013
14601. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at any time when
that person's driving privilege is suspended or revoked for reckless
driving in violation of Section 23103, 23104, or 23105, any reason
listed in subdivision (a) or (c) of Section 12806 authorizing the
department to refuse to issue a license, negligent or incompetent
operation of a motor vehicle as prescribed in subdivision (e) of
Section 12809, or negligent operation as prescribed in Section
12810.5, if the person so driving has knowledge of the suspension or
revocation. Knowledge shall be conclusively presumed if mailed notice
has been given by the department to the person pursuant to Section
13106. The presumption established by this subdivision is a
presumption affecting the burden of proof.


He was charged with driving without a driver's license but it was dismissed.

2012 he was charged with oral copulation against someone's will multiple counts but they were dismissed. 288ac2a.

288a.  (a) Oral copulation is the act of copulating the mouth of one
person with the sexual organ or anus of another person.
   (b) (1) Except as provided in Section 288, any person who
participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is
under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison, or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.
   (2) Except as provided in Section 288, any person over 21 years of
age who participates in an act of oral copulation with another
person who is under 16 years of age is guilty of a felony.
   (c) (1) Any person who participates in an act of oral copulation
with another person who is under 14 years of age and more than 10
years younger than he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the
state prison for three, six, or eight years.
   (2) (A) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation when the
act is accomplished against the victim's will by means of force,
violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily
injury on the victim or another person shall be punished by

imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.

236 false imprisonment also dismissed,
261a2 rape for force dismissed
273 5 a spousal abuse, dismissed. 

All of these were 2012 and 2013.

Here are criminal charges, convictions as Timothy Joseph Roston.  

Charged but dismissed

273.5.  (a) Any person who willfully inflicts corporal injury
resulting in a traumatic condition upon a victim described in
subdivision (b) is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof
shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three,
or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by
a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000), or by both that fine

and imprisonment.

Guilty, driving without license, proper registration and insurance

Guilty of 31.  All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it
be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act
constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not
being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all
persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age
of fourteen years, or persons who are mentally incapacitated, to
commit any crime, or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion
the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit
any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel
another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so
committed.

Guilty of 148.9.  (a) Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself
or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any peace
officer listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of
Section 830.33, upon a lawful detention or arrest of the person,
either to evade the process of the court, or to evade the proper
identification of the person by the investigating officer is guilty
of a misdemeanor.

charged and acquited of domestic battery 242-243e

held to answer to (a) (1) Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country or of an offense
enumerated in subdivision (a), (b), or (d) of Section 12001.6, or who is addicted to the
use of any narcotic drug, and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in his or her
possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. 

held to answer to Fish & Game violation 2118 b illegal possession or release of wildlife. I see pics of him with wildlife. I doubt he was trying to harm it. 

Guilty of theft, receipt of stolen property, perjury, driving a stolen car...and much more. The media said he just did a few petty crimes. I don't think so. I have no rap sheet at all, not even a jay walking ticket. 

As Timothy Roston he has a few evictions, small claims... He was evicted from 
1155 NORTH LA

CIENEGA BOULEVARD,UNIT1206, LOS ANGELES, CA 90069

He was sued in small claims by VIERTEL'S AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE INC VS. ROSTON, TIMOTHY J. He seems to have lost every case except one which he won by default as a car rental company went out of business. I think he sued for lost wages but can't tell. 

________________________________

UPDATE: Investigators now have video evidence of someone parking their car on the 110 fwy, walking to the wood framed apartment building with cans of gas and lighting the structure on fire. No more information was released. I take it they still don't know who set the fire. 

http://laist.com/2015/03/31/dtla_fire_suspect_on_video.php

Who is Geoffrey H Palmer of G.H. Palmer and Associates. Geoffrey Harrison Palmer was born May 11, 1950. His siblings are William Todd Palmer August 18, 1947, Michael Ellis Palmer December 11, 1951 to July 1, 1973, Robert Preston Palmer October 12, 1954, Fia Palmer-Richmond December 31, 1956, half sibling Daniel Saxon Palmer Jr. March 16, 1961 born to second wife Shirley Clark 1932.

I thought I'd take another look at Geoffrey Palmer's family tree. Turns out the family name is not "Palmer." It's "Wiesinger." Daniel Wieseinger decided to take that name when he got married. There are marriage certificates in both names. I think Geoffrey's father Daniel named him "Geoffrey" because he sounded very anglo saxon white protestant. It is not a Jewish name. Both his mother, father and all grandparents were Jewish. They came from Hungary and Russia. His mother's family were dress makers then later got into construction, building. I think that is how Daniel got into building. I think he changed the name because a Jewish name back then probably wasn't good for builders. Below is the updated family tree. I think I now understand why Geoffrey wants the glitsy lifestyle, to get away from his poor Jewish roots. 



Geoffrey Palmer's father was Daniel Saxon Palmer born July 5, 1920 in Hungary, died December 22, 2006. He was a well known Los Angeles architect who partnered with William Krisel. His mother was Doris Beverly Weintraub born 1921 in New York. Geoff's wife is Anne Emerich-Palm June 25, 1965. They have a son named Grant Henri Palmer born 2002.

Geoffrey Palmer, Anne Emerich Palmer, Grand Palmer, Daniel Saxon Palmer, Doris Weintraub, Fia Palmer, Robert Palmer, William Palmer, Michael Palmer, family tree, ancestry
Geoff went to undergrad in Boulder, Colorado. He attended law school at Pepperdine and was accepted to the bar but is currently inactive.

Geoffrey Palmer has a "criminal record" for building or demolishing without a permit. He was charged with this crime but the case states "dismissed or not prosecuted." I think this is the 1887 Victorian home which one of his bulldozers "accidentally" backed into and destroyed. Many articles talk about this case.

When I say "criminal record," I mean that if you go to lacourt.org criminal defendants link here https://www.lacourt.org/paonlineservices/criminalindex/publicmain.aspx? you can search for "Index Of Defendants in Criminal Cases." It also says "This site allows you to access an index of defendants in criminal cases in the Los Angeles Superior Court." The site pulls up misdemeanor and felony offenses. I went to the "index of criminal defendants" and put in Geoffrey Palmer's name. These records came up from the index of "criminal" defendants. This is a copy of what pulled up. Above links you to the document so you can go there, search yourself, read the same items and come to your own conclusion. This is a screen shot of the result.

Geoffrey Palmer criminal record for not have LA City muni permit to build or demolish.
These are the two charges. I searched los angeles code and the violation numbers.

"91.106.1.1.  Building Permits.  No person shall erect, construct, alter, repair, demolish, remove or move any building or structure, nor shall any person commence any liquid washing, compressed air cleaning or steam cleaning of exterior surfaces of any building unless said person has obtained a permit therefor from the department. A separate permit shall be obtained for each separate building or structure except that a group of temporary structures erected on one site for a limited period of time may be included on one permit.

Where the installation, alteration or repair of ventilation equipment or ductwork is not included within the scope of a valid building permit, a separate building permit shall be obtained for the work.

Sandblasting, liquid washing, compressed air cleaning, steam cleaning of exterior surfaces of buildings adjacent to and within 20 feet of pedestrian walkways in dedicated streets in the limits of Fire District No. 1 shall be done only between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or on Sundays.

Where complete plans for a proposed building are filed with the department and where a foundation only permit is issued with respect thereto in accordance with rules established by the Superintendent of Building, a building permit may be issued for the remainder of the building within one year after the issuance of the foundation only permit, provided the plans and specifications comply with all applicable Los Angeles Building Code provisions in effect at the time of issuance of the foundation only permit.  (Amended by Ord. No. 180,619, Eff. 5/12/09.)"

and

"91.103.3. Violation of an Order. No person shall fail to comply with any valid order issued pursuant to any provision or requirement of this Code"

Here is an article about Geoffrey Palmer's company demolishing the Victorian building in 2003.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/downtown-s-million-fighter/article_82dbd2e6-9c1e-5f96-9e49-42529c4475ad.html

"In April 2003, however, Palmer's troubles escalated. One Saturday morning his construction crew, which was working on the plot across from the Orsini, demolished an 1887 Victorian house, which preservationists considered the last historic home on Bunker Hill. Palmer did not have permits to level the structure, and a scandal erupted.

Already considered an irreverent developer by some, Palmer's image suffered further when his vice president, Peter Novak, called the razed house "a piece of crap." Novak further claimed that the crew had no choice but to level the house after a construction vehicle accidentally bumped it, causing it to lean dangerously to one side.

Though the graffiti-scarred structure was in a state of disrepair, and was reportedly a hotbed of illegal activity, the preservation community pounced. Ken Bernstein, director of preservation issues for the Los Angeles Conservancy, which lobbied city officials to severely punish Palmer, recalled the demolition as "shocking and egregious."

"The explanations for why he did not have a permit were rather farfetched and laughable," Bernstein said.

City officials enforced an obscure ordinance that barred Palmer from building on the property - which was slated to house a second phase of the Orsini - for five years. Some saw the punishment as the city's way of taking Palmer to task for his lawsuit over the Visconti."

"Developer Mark Weinstein said Palmer's approach to development poses certain problems.

"He's a really good business person, but he doesn't like to get involved in the political system, or wading through all the rules they have," said Weinstein. "He wants to stay out of the limelight, but he gets in the limelight."

"Last month, he ended his lawsuit with the city over the illegal demolition of the Victorian home. Palmer agreed to pay $200,000 to preserve historic homes in the area, and provide a series of community benefits including new parking, a public plaza and landscaping. In exchange, Palmer will be allowed to begin building the Orsini II.

"Again, the city got their pound of flesh and we get to risk our money to build a few hundred more apartments for the Downtown workforce," Palmer said."

More about that lawsuit and settlement.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/home-builder-settles-lawsuit-with-city/article_40b5a2b3-c599-5b71-a6d0-1668f9da8dca.html

I went to get a copy of the legal docs but the files are no longer online. They are still in the lacity website here.

http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=03-0926-S1

Article talks more about Geoffrey Palmer.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/11/7_awful_stories_about_the_man_destroying_downtown_la.php

Here is more about the Victorian house which was "accidentally" demolished.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/14/local/me-house14

"In June 2003, the city attorney filed two misdemeanor counts against Palmer alleging that he demolished the house without a permit and failed to obey a Department of Building and Safety order. Under an agreement, Palmer pleaded not guilty and this year entered a diversion program.

He also paid $50,000 to the Southern California Chinese Cultural Historical Society and agreed to get required permits for all projects; he will spend a year on probation. If he abides by the terms, the case will be dropped, said Eric Moses of the city attorney's office.

City officials invoked the "scorched-earth ordinance," which -- by prohibiting construction on the land for five years -- is designed to penalize whoever demolishes a historic property."

Geoffrey Palmer was arraigned, "Palmer is scheduled to be arraigned Sept. 24 (2003) on two misdemeanor counts of demolishing a house without a permit and failing to obey an order by the Department of Building and Safety."

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/aug/29/local/me-palmer29

Geoffrey Palmer could face criminal charges.

"A developer who leveled the last house in the city's Bunker Hill neighborhood could face criminal charges and be barred from building on the site."

"The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail. If the scorched earth ordinance is invoked, the title to the property will reflect a five-year ban on building."

"I don't know if a $1,000 fine is going to do much and it's unusual for people to do jail time," Keim acknowledged. "But what we always ask for is probation for two or three years.... If he does this anywhere else in the city, he's going to go back in front of the judge and pay the piper."

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/06/local/me-palmer6

More about the demolition from lacity.org website

http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=03-0926

"Council File: 03-0926
Title
GIESE RESIDENCE / 840 WEST CESAR CHAVEZ BOULEVARD
Subject
Motion - On April 19, 2003, the Giese Residence at 840 West Cesar Chavez Boulevard was knowingly and wrongfully demolished by G.H. Palmer Associates (Palmer) without a demolition permit. Built in 1887, the Giese Residence was the last 19th Century home in the Bunker Hill area of downtown Los Angeles. On April 12, 2003, the Department of Building and Safety verified that the destruction of the Giese Residence had occurred without issuance of a demolition permit and immediately issued Palmer a "Stop Work" order and a 48-hour order to correct.

On May 2, 2003, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) advised Palmer that it "did not, and could not clear [his] Application, because the proposed demolition did not comply with the Plan or applicable law." The Community Redevelopment Agency further informed Palmer that his "demolition of the 'Giese Residence' (a structure of historical significance" without review, mitigation or permit was inconsistent with the Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and was not authorized by the Agency."

In 2002, Palmer had applied for a permit to demolish the Giese Residence to clear the site for future development. The Giese Residence was located within the boundaries of the Chinatown Redevelopment Project Area. Pursuant to the Chinatown Redevelopment Plan (Plan), the Community Redevelopment Agency was required to review Palmer's application to ensure conformance with the Plan.

In September 2002, following preparation of an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and public comment period, the Community Redevelopment Agency determined that the Giese Residence was an historical resource and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required under the California Environmental Quality Act prior to the Community Redevelopment Agency's clearance of Palmer's application for a demolition permit. The Community Redevelopment Agency's determination was communicated to Palmer's legal counsel on October 31, 2002. Not only had the residence been identified as an historic resource within the Chinatown Redevelopment Project Area, but it also appeared to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. The home had historic significance as a last remaining example of "Boom of the Eighties" architecture downtown and as the last remaining home in downtown's "Park Tact" laid out by Prudent and Victor Beaudry. Prior to the wrongful weekend demolition of the Giese Residence, Council District One (1) had been in communication with Palmer's legal counsel and agents in an effort to facilitate the relocation of this historical resource. Just two days before the demolition occurred, an interagency meeting was held to facilitate relocation of the house by a willing buyer to a vacant lot located in the Angelino Heights Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ), less than a mile away.

In the late- 1980's, the City of Los Angeles enacted the so-called "Scorched Earth Ordinance" found in Section 91.106.4.1(10) of the Municipal Code to punish illegal demolition activity without proper permits and to deter developers from defying City permit requirements and State environmental laws. This ordinance authorizes the Department of Building and Safety to withhold development permits on a property for five years if it determines that demolition has occurred without proper permits.

THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council direct the Department of Building and Safety in consultation with the City Attorney to undertake all civil and criminal measures available to the City under the Los Angeles Municipal Code and State law to enforce and prosecute G.H. Palmer Associates for this clearly egregious violation of City codes and the California Environmental Quality Act, including but not limited to the invoking of Section 91.106.4.1(10) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, otherwise known as the "Scorched Earth Ordinance" in relation to the demolition of the Giese Residence at 840 West Cesar Chavez Boulevard; and FURTHER MOVE that the Department of Building and Safety and the City Attorney provide a status report of the enforcement actions undertaken by them to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee of the Council with two weeks."

840 W Cesar E Chavez Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90012

Built 1885, 6,621 sf lot, 2,842 sf home with fireplace, April 2002 $5,000,050 sold.

In the Los Angeles City Building and Safety website the address is for some reason listed as 840 E Cesar E Chavez, 90012 even though it is 840 W. The site also says no access to permit violations. I have never seen that before.

https://www.ladbsservices2.lacity.org/OnlineServices/PermitReport/PcisPermitDetail?id1=01019&id2=10000&id3=00190

Below is a five page pdf print out of the civil cases for Geoffrey Palmer in Los Angeles County.
http://marycummins.com/geoffreypalmercivilcases.pdf

Each of Palmer's projects has its own name. You'd have to search the name of every development to see all the lawsuits. There are many.

Below are his federal cases.
http://marycummins.com/palmercase1.pdf

http://marycummins.com/palmercase2.pdf

William Krissel, Daniel Saxon Palmer Sr, architect, developer

Geoffrey Palmer, son Grant Palmer, Polo partners

Geoffrey Palmer has been a bit of a controversy in downtown Los Angeles ever since his large controversial faux-Italian behemoth of an apartment complex burned down yesterday morning "mysteriously." http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-massive-la-project-destroyed-in-fire-was-controversial-20141208-story.html

Many have written about this controversial developer who has not granted an interview in the last ten years.
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/11/7_awful_stories_about_the_man_destroying_downtown_la.php

Here is a link to over 8,000 articles written about Geoffrey Palmer the real estate person and not the actor. You can see many other writers saying the exact same things which I've posted here. Geoffrey Palmer has been mentioned in over 8,000 media articles in relation to real estate. Geoffrey Palmer is therefore a public person as it relates to real estate and wealth.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1EODB_enUS618US618&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22geoffrey+palmer%22+real+estate

While his father was a well known architect who brought affordable, modern design to the post war masses, Geoff has given LA ugly-faux Italian cookie cutter, cheaply made expensive rental units built in slum areas in a castle, fortress fashion. Most of the tenants are young, International USC students who are just looking for security and amenities.

Geoffrey H Palmer is also known for his extravagant taste in homes and home decor. He purchased the overly gaudy French 1913 1000 Cove in Beverly Hills for $29,000,000. 10 bed, 14 bath, 16,000 sf main house with guest houses. He then proceeded to decorate it in gold lame everything. 

1000 Cove Way, Beverly Hills, California 90210


1000 Cover Way, Beverly Hills, California 90210, Geoffrey Palmer
Here are interior photos of this gaudy, gold lame, gold gilt, velvet, overly done interior design.

1000 Cove Way, Beverly Hills, California 90210, Geoffrey Palmer

1000 Cove Way, Beverly Hills, California 90210, Geoffrey Palmer

1000 Cove Way, Beverly Hills, California 90210, Geoffrey Palmer

1000 Cove Way, Beverly Hills, California 90210, Geoffrey Palmer

1000 Cove Way, Beverly Hills, California 90210, Geoffrey Palmer

1000 Cove Way, Beverly Hills, California 90210, Geoffrey Palmer
If you take a look at Geoffrey Palmer's lawsuits, he has a lot of slip and fall, small claims, medical malpractice... (see links above). Geoff Palmer sued the City of Los Angeles for violation of his civil rights. He didn't think it was fair that he should have low income units in his buildings even though this was mandatory for all builders.

June 2015 the Supreme Court just ruled that developers do have to have low income units.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-affordable-housing-20150615-story.html#page=1

I think the real reason Geoffrey Harrison Palmer has not wanted to give an interview in ten years is because he doesn't want to have to answer the hard questions. Why does he only care about money? Why is his house made out of almost solid gold and burgundy velvet? Is it physically possible to build a cheaper building than he does? Why does he insist on building shorter, squatter buildings? Is it because then he can use cheaper wood...even if it is highly flammable besides not as seismically fit?

See above for information about the alleged arsonist which was caught. The police said it was arson.

The result of the arson investigation should be interesting. Did Geoffrey burn down his building? Why did the arsonist only burn down the cheaper apartments almost right on top of the freeway and not building A which has all the amenities and higher priced units? Hmm, did the arsonist burn down the lower income units?! Did someone who hated Geoffrey Palmer burn it down? Did community activists burn it down or someone like ELF? Maybe his finance company burned it down? Based on the intensity of the fire, the fact that it seemed to all burn at once, I believe it was arson.

Building A was untouched. Building B in the inferior location smack on the freeway was destroyed. If you look at the diagram that is where the cheaper, smaller units were located.

Da Vinci, arson, low income units destroyed, others untouched, Geoffrey Palmer, arsonist,
Da Vinci apartment complex, before, after, fire, arson, Geoff Palmer
Building B was destroyed. The heat also destroyed part of the freeway and buildings 100 yards away, i.e. 300 feet. Building A is across the street, what, 40 feet away? yet it was not harmed when buildings 300 feet away were harmed. It's set to open January 2015. It has bigger, more expensive units with all the amenities in better location. It's not located smack dab on the freeway. When I used to drive by when the complex got over two stories I felt I could high five the workmen on the site if I were in the passenger seat. They were that close. The complex is maximum three feet from the freeway.

See above for info on the alleged arsonist. The case is still under investigation. No one has been convicted.

I personally feel Geoff Palmer really only wanted to open the nicer, better units away from the freeway. He maybe got stuck in approval process to open the cheaper, shittier units located almost on top of the freeway. I now think Geoff caused it to burn for insurance, planning, fuck you LA City reasons... Maybe approval process caused delay costs. Maybe he just wanted to fuck with the city.

An interesting thing. Geoff Palmer is EXTREMELY materialistic, into money, gold, lame, excess. His dad was a minimalist, modernist, into the environment, animals, nature, people, community. So was his second wife and Daniel Saxon Palmer Jr. He was into surfing, environment, animal causes like his mom.

Maybe Geoff Palmer was upset dad left his first wife, his mother, to be with another when he was just a kid. Maybe that is why son wanted to show up dad in the money department by creating the cheapest shit developments which hurt community, nature, look like shit....

The below disclaimer is on the first page of my blog. I'll add another copy here in case some people can't see the right side bar.

Most of my articles are about real estate and properties. A few of my articles are about scammers and con men. Almost every person mentioned here is a public figure. Geoffrey Palmer is a public figure when it comes to real estate in Los Angeles. So are his properties, companies and foundations. The items in this blog are of public interest and concern. Geoffrey Palmer's developments are of public concern. I am media and a blogger. The images, video snippets are used under the Fair Use of Copyright act for non-profit comment and education. Everything in this blog is the truth to the best of my knowledge. If you see a mistake, please, contact me with proof so I can edit or delete it. I generally post links to back up all of the statements I make so you can review the documents and come to your own conclusion. Everything else in the blog is my personal opinion and belief. Nothing in this blog is confidential. Everything is public information. The purpose of this blog is to share this public information about public people for the good of the public.

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.

Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, real estate, appraiser, appraisal, instructor, teacher, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brentwood, Bel Air, California, licensed, permitted, single family, condo, pud, hud, fannie mae, freddie mac, uspap, certified, residential, certified resident, apartment building, multi-family, commercial, industrial, expert witness, civil, criminal, orea, dre, insurance, bonded, experienced, bilingual, spanish, english, form, 1004, 2055, land, raw, acreage, vacant, insurance, cost, income approach, market analysis, comparative, theory, appraisal theory, cost approach, sales, matched pairs, plot, plat, map, diagram, photo, photographs, photography, rear, front, street, subject, comparable, sold, listed, active, pending, expired, cancelled, listing, mls, multiple listing service, claw, themls,