Justice Denied – Foul Play Victim – Personal Setback

June 20, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

I bear the ‘Almighty God,’ witness to the topic presentation.

Recently, there was a personal setback with a small claims complaint filed by a former tenant, who falsely stated not having received the rental security deposit on the rental property for the period May 2008 through July 2009.

The tenant and his spouse – Timothy Brook and Lucy Brook, had newly arrived from the United Kingdom with no credit history in the United States and leased the referenced property in the claim along with a commitment to purchase their own home at the end of the twelve-month period. Accordingly, it was unanimously agreed at that time to assess the individual status on both sides in a year.

During that period, all requests for any repairs were attended with new replacements under their supervision and utmost satisfaction, including the regular light bulbs changed six months after them settling in the house.

Further, a written consensus was reached to resolve any disputes by an arbitrator rather than lawsuits through attorneys or small claims court system and aim for amicable settlement avoiding litigation costs for both parties.

Unfortunately, this agreement was breached by the tenants who hired an attorney after their voluntary decision to vacate the property, despite my email request on June 3, 2009 about lease renewal for which there was no response.

The attorney sent an inflammatory letter stating that,

“Comply with my clients’ demands on any issues. If not, do so at your peril.”

All records are maintained up until now.

Subsequently, the tenants moved out of the property and the refund check for the rental security deposit was sent promptly. The tenants cashed it in the same month, i.e. July 2009, having acknowledged the adjustments and the payment. Receipts for regular cleaning costs and minor repairs were shared with the tenant. It was all accepted with no objection and the matter was settled in July 2009.

Approximately five months after vacating the house and cashing the refund deposit evidenced by a bank transaction showing check details and the encashment date by the party, a small claims judgment was mailed to my address indicating the amount to be paid against the complaint.

Following that, I filed a motion to vacate the judgment. It went drastically wrong due to the manner the hearing was held by the Commissioner Steven Yep, Santa Clara County, Small Claims Division, and the presiding authority on this case.

The Plaintiff arrived without the witness quoted as a “close friend,” – Simon Eldridge, to confirm the alleged ‘Proof of Service.’

When I raised the question about the witness’ absence with the Plaintiff before the hearing, he paid no attention and walked away.

Instead, the plaintiff delivered a letter that was not shared with me during the documents exchange prior to the hearing and the details were not disclosed.

The Commissioner mentioned that the letter was a note from the witness stating – “the witness could not be at the hearing because of an office meeting.”

Further, the Commissioner said that “he was satisfied with the witness statement by proxy,” alleging the service date and time.

NB: The witness statement was not an affidavit but an ordinary note, a copy that was later obtained.

Most importantly, the witness was not a third party i.e. a Professional Process Server or Sheriff hired to serve the summons with a genuine concern for legal consequences.

Even though, it’s permissible by law to have a person 18 years or above for this purpose, the conflict of interest and the convenience having a close friend to cooperate is easily available in this respect.

The Commissioner then looked at me and asked the specific questions, which he did not consider it necessary to pose to the Plaintiff at the beginning of the hearing:

Do you realize that you are under oath?

To that, I said – Yes, your honor.

Did you take the oath?

I replied. Yes, your honor.

Then he turned to the clerk and verified with her:

Did she really take the oath?

For, he did not believe me in spite of my repeated assurance.

The clerk responded – Yes, she did.

Essentially, the substantive evidence that I provided was set aside against the witness and the plaintiff’s verbal statements that was not only contradictory to their earlier versions, but also failed to support their fraudulent claim.

The inconsistency in the Plaintiff and his witness positions throughout the process were ignored by the judicial authorities, even though it inconclusively proved the fact that the witness or the server never visited the property and the documents were not delivered or served by him for the hearing.

A perjury was committed by the witness and the plaintiff in the wrongful judgment enabling the Plaintiff to game the system with the inherent flaws in the judgment award.

This is just a preview of the hearings that took place with a conspicuous bias whereby the presiding Commissioner Steven Yep became the attorney to the other party, instead of being objective and diligently applying the law on equal and fair basis to both parties.

In the appeal, the Judge Gregory H. Ward at the Superior Court, Santa Clara County chose to disregard the law entirely, in lieu of the witness or the server admission during the appeal on 06/04/10 on the failure to “specify the contents thereof,” required per Code of Civil Procedure 415.20(a) and (b).

Likewise, The SC-104, “Proof of Service,” filed by the Plaintiff’s witness confirms that the copies of documents allegedly served on 09/29/09 were not mailed per Code of Civil Procedure 415.20(a) and (b), apart from other Civil Code requirements being not met by the server representing the Plaintiff.

Besides, the small claims complaint filed under false premise by the Plaintiff whereby,

The Plaintiff denied receiving the rental security deposit, when the refund check was cashed by the Plaintiff on 07/27/09 – evidence was enclosed for court reference.

Similarly, the Plaintiff’s erroneous and unsubstantiated claim comprise moving expenses without any receipts for the itemized charges that does not even add up to the total amount presented in the declaration under penalty of perjury.

“Per Plaintiff’s declaration signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Moving expenses – $754.78

Van rental – $73.92

Petrol – $25.00 ( It’s noteworthy that the plaintiff charging the weekly gas amount for shifting within the neighborhood, i.e. less than half a mile.)

Moving boxes – $34.86

Cleaning – $276.00 – (The property owner is being charged for cleaning up the tenants’ mess during their rental period).”

The itemized expense adds up to $409.78 with no receipts and the remaining $345.00 has no explanation or receipts for it.

Again, the amount fraudulently claimed for vacating the property on their volition, regardless of the email request about lease renewal (supported by evidence).

None of these crucial facts and evidences was taken into consideration, thereby awarding the Plaintiff for the felony.

The Judges involved in the case are judged and evaluated by the public for dereliction of duty reflected in their shortsighted decisions affecting and ruining thousands of lives.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

—————————————————————————————–

Source: http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/evaluationtrial.php

Commissioner Steven Yep

All comments are the opinions of the survey respondents.

“Commissioner Yep is a terrible judge.

I have witnessed his conduct in the courtroom on more than one instance. He treats pro se defendants in probably the worst manner for infractions and misdemeanors that are brought before him.

I had a case, which I fought as a pro se, and was tossed out on my behind. It was so bad that I asked a pro temp to hear my case, and won my case.

The fact that I won really doesn’t matter… it’s that the pro temp LISTENED to the argument and heard both sides fully before rendering a decision.

I never had that chance in Commissioner Yep’s court.

I urge anyone who has this guy for a judge to get a preemptory challenge and write to both Judge Danner and the state Commission for judicial independence to get rid of this guy. 2007-02-07

Negative/Critical – View Survey – Grade – D(0.81)

Part I. ABA Guidelines ABA Guideline 5-1. Legal Ability.

a. Having legal reasoning ability. D (1.00)

b. Having knowledge of substantive law. F (0.00)

c. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. D (1.00)

d. Keeping current on developments in law, procedure, and evidence. C (2.00)

ABA Guideline 5-2. Integrity and Impartiality.

a. Avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. F (0.00)

b. Treating all people with dignity and respect. C (2.00)

c. Having an absence of favor or disfavor toward anyone, including but not limited to favor or disfavor based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. F (0.00)

d. Acting fairly by giving people individual consideration. F (0.00)

e. Considering both sides of an argument before rendering a decision. F (0.00)

f. Basing decisions on the law and the facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel, and with an open mind in considering all issues. F (0.00)

g. Having ability to make difficult or unpopular decisions. F (0.00) ”
————————————————————————————————–

2. Survey Results for Judge Gregory H. Ward 1

All grades/scores and comments are the opinions of the survey respondent.

Click Here to see Individual Surveys

Overall: 2
D(0.78) out of 11 surveys
Comments (9)

Respondents Approve Monthly View Daily View

Do you approve of this judge’s overall performance? Yes: 0 No: 11

Part I. ABA Guidelines

ABA Guideline 5-1. Legal Ability.

a. Having legal reasoning ability. C- (1.57)

b. Having knowledge of substantive law. C- (1.57)

c. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. C (2.17)

d. Keeping current on developments in law, procedure, and evidence. D+ (1.25)

ABA Guideline 5-2. Integrity and Impartiality.

a. Avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. F (0.00)

b. Treating all people with dignity and respect – D (0.75)

c. Having an absence of favor or disfavor toward anyone, including but not limited to favor or disfavor based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status – F (0.12)

d. Acting fairly by giving people individual consideration – F (0.25)

e. Considering both sides of an argument before rendering a decision – D (0.57)

f. Basing decisions on the law and the facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel, and with an open mind in considering all issues – F (0.12)

g. Having ability to make difficult or unpopular decisions – F (0.00)

Judge Gregory H. Ward

All comments are the opinions of the survey respondents.

1. Biased Judge Remarkably goes against jury verdicts Case Study–Pfizer (IP)Trade Secrets–astonishing reversal of jury’s unanimous verdict 2010-01-27
View Survey – Negative/Critical – D(0.71)

2. Discounts Jury in jury trials–a complete disrespect for the JURY SYSTEM Very, very favorable to Big Business Should not be on the bench Has other agendas 2010-01-27
View Survey Negative/Critical – D(1.00)

3. Very emotional, unpredictable. Favors defendants to a fault. Believes that he is the law. You don’t need a jury with this judge–he ignores jury decisions. 2009-12-29
View Survey – Negative/Critical – D-(0.52)

4. Most biased judge in California. Strongly favors business. Very emotional. 2009-12-29
View Survey – Negative/Critical – D(0.74)

5. Should be removed from the bench. 2009-12-29
View Survey – Not Classified – (F-1.00)\

6. Very Biased. No respect for decisions by jury. 2009-12-29
View Survey – Negative/Critical – (F-1.00)

7. He totally disregarded the jury verdict. 2009-12-29
View Survey – Not Classified – D(0.78)

8. This judge is totally out of control, egocentric, & emotional.

He has complete disrespect for jury decisions.

He is clearly very emotional and biased toward big business.

Look at his ratings.

In fact, look at his record when serving in DOJ–he effectively was fired because of emotional instability.

Most recent cases: Apple (2008). Pfizer(2008) — he overturned a unanimous jury verdict, and ignored Pfizer’s management prevarications which came to light in the $2.38 billion Pharmacia settlement. 2009-12-29
View Survey Negative/Critical – D(1.00)

9. Example of his reasoning; petitioner had good reason to file as there were changes in circumstances, dad exercised only 12% timeshare, not the 20% of record, dad’s income rose from 285k to 800k.

BUT child support met the kid’s needs and retroactive support would only be a windfall to mother.

The law mandates an increase in support when the timeshare lowers as support must be commensurate with timeshare, so even if dad had no increase in income, lowering dad’s timeshare mandated an increase in support of some amount.

Christ, I didn’t even go to law school and I can reason that one out. More reasoning; ignored argument for hearing on equitable grounds, said FC 2122 does not apply to setting aside a dismissal but CCP 473 does, ignoring the fact that blackmail and duress (not good cause under CCP 473) had been used both to get a settlement and to force a dismissal, ie duress used to deny access to the courts by one party.

Sanctions: awarded 285k in sanctions against unemployed mother to be paid to multimillionaire dad who had used the blackmail and threats to keep mother out of court. 2009-11-27
View Survey – Negative/Critical – D(1.00).”

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Ethics, Featured 

Comments

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.