California Appellate Judge Rules On Perjury When He Cannot Even Spell Perjury
Sacramento, January 22, 2018
 |
| Presiding Judge, Vance Raye, California Third District Court of Appeals |
On December 29, 2017, an 87 year old, elder, disabled, appellant filed an “Urgent Writ/Motion (1) To Enforce CCP§36 Priority/ Calendar Preference Order, (2) Issue OSC Against Martinez For Perjury/Misconduct, (3) Order Electronic Service” in an appeal no. C082930 before the California Third District Court of Appeals, see also http://corruptpersky.blogspot.com/2018/01/allegedly-corrupt-california-state.html
The said Writ/Motion alleged that attorney Carlos Gregory Martinez, [California State Bar #248358] for the opposite party Kamal Kapadia, committed among other things, perjury by signing under penalty of perjury a false proof of service and never serving his court filings in the appellate case to either the appellant or the other respondent.
To prevent bad faith fake proofs of service, appellant requested that the Court order “Electronic Service” either by the Court approved vendor “True Filing” or use of parties email which Carlos Martinez, the Court and all parties are well conversant with.
For more on Carlos Martinez, and his troubles with the University of Colorado-> “The Plaintiff, Carlos Martinez, a senior at the University of Colorado, Boulder, expected to graduate after the Spring 2000 semester. Mr. Martinez did not graduate as planned, however, because he was expelled from the University on April 20, 2000 for violations of the University’s Student Code of Conduct”, see https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/pdfs/1752c4291d04335a7672a448ea246258.pdf
In less than four Court days, on January 5, 2018, an Order [most likely authored by a California Judicial Council staff attorney] was filed under the Presiding Justice Vance R. Raye’s name, which by itself is a fraud on the Court, and which states “Appellant’s motion entitled ‘Urgent Writ/Motion (1) to Enforce CCP section 36 Priority/Calendar Preference Order, (2) Issue OSC Against Martinez for Prejury/Misconduct, (3) Order Electronic Service; Memorandum & Declaration in Support’ is denied” [Bold added]
How can a person that can’t even spell the word “perjury” be appointed to judge or rule on perjury? This calls into question the quality of California Judiciary, which daily makes life and death, fatal decisions on the public, without any oversight.
Next, normally appellate motions are not decided until the opposite party has had a 15 days’ time to respond from the date the motion is filed, see California Rules of Court, 8.54(a)(1) and 8.54(b)(1). However in this case, the staff attorney simply killed the motion, using Presiding Judge Raye’s machine name/signature without proper adversarial due process, exhibiting the hallmarks of a “fixed”, arbitrary, and capricious ruling.
It appears that the Third District Court of Appeals is conspiring with opposite counsel to defeat the 87 year old, disabled, appellant’s appeal, instead of ruling on facts, law and merits. For e.g. after the time to file a Response Brief expired, the Third District Court of Appeal court staff appears to have contacted opposite counsel Martinez, giving him a wake up call, asking him to file in his extension request, which the latter did, and which was stamped marked received after Court hours at 5:05 p.m. on December 27, 2017. The Court staff then rubber stamped “granted” for 90 days, the said extension request, within minutes of its receipt, using Presiding Judge Raye’s machine signature, without allowing appellant, or other parties prior notice of that extension request, let alone an opportunity to respond. Appellant and other parties did not know of this extension request as Martinez never served it on them, although stating otherwise under proof of perjury.
In a separate request, the 87 year old appellant requested CCP§36 expedited calendar preference priority, but despite granting that request the Third District Court continues to delay adjudication of the appeal by allowing opposing counsel who does nothing to file a response brief exhausting the first 30 days, followed by another 90 days.
The staff attorney also rejected which appellant requested the Appellate Court take evidence on, or judicial notice of under California Rule 2.252. It appears that the staff attorney is hell bent on defeating the appeal one way or the other, regardless of the law, facts, or merits.
The public is growing increasingly tired, impatient, and frustrated with the attorney profession, a relatively small percentage of the overall population, monopolizing and cornering the market on this country’s justice system, raging havoc with life-changing orders against ordinary citizens.
The above saga once again proves that the American Judiciary and in particular, the California Courts is run BY the attorney, comprises OF the attorney and is mean’t FOR the benefit of attorney represented parties.
Please direct your comments and queries to judicialoppression@gmail.com
