Deceased First Name: family law
Deceased Last Name: family law
Deceased Date of Death: 1998-now
Surrogate's Court County: Los Angeles
Surrrogate's Court State: ca
Judges First Name: all the judges
Judges Last Name: all the judges
Tell Your Story: HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE RAMBAM KLAUSNER DUNN KUHL
DUKES LA JUSTICE
The LASCJA Slush Fund Scandal
The appearance, however, is that a group of judges within
the Los Angeles Superior Court are operating a checking
account and a business that is essentially "off the books,"
with no oversight from any regulatory agency, and receiving
money from attorneys who are practicing in their courtrooms.
- Helen Grieco
The above images of checks made out to CASH for the amounts
of US$571.60 and US$870.00 were received the day after the
hard copy of the letter below was mailed, and are highly
pertinent, as they illustrate the way in which money in the
Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund might be translated into
unacknowledged and untaxed income. It is checks such as
these that substantiate Helen Grieco's statement, quoted
below, that Several of the copies of cancelled checks
included with the attached material are for "Cash," and the
amounts are not trivial. The small number of checks for
cash that CA NOW was able to obtain total over $4,000.
The following gloss of the words spoliation and spoliator,
following Black's Law Dictionary (1968), might be helpful:
SPOLIATION: Destruction of a thing by the act of a
stranger, as the erasure or alteration of a writing.
SPOLIATOR: A spoiler or destroyer. It is a maxim of law,
bearing chiefly on evidence, but also upon the value
generally of the thing destroyed, that everything most to
his disadvantage is to be presumed against the destroyer,
contra spoliatorem omnia prosumuntur.
Applied to the seven documents spoliated by James R. Dunn in
Rambam v Prytulak, this maxim dictates that the documents be
presumed to be supportive of the Lubomyr Prytulak position,
and to be inculpatory of James R. Dunn's handling of the
case.
Lubomyr Prytulak
Ukrainian Archive, www.ukar.org
[Address]
[Telephone]
[Email]
28 November 2002
Gary Klausner
Supervising Judge, Civil Division
Los Angeles Superior Court
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA
USA 90012
Re: Rambam v Prytulak BC271433 James R. Dunn
Gary Klausner:
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association (LASCJA) Slush
Fund
Accusations against the LASCJA are credible enough to lead
to wide commentary, and to a broad call for investigation,
as indicated by the following excerpt from a letter written
by the Executive Director of the California National
Organization for Women (CA NOW), in which I have added bold
emphasis to statements that will be supported by
documentation further below:
Honorable Sheila Kuehl,
Capitol Building #4032
Sacramento, CA 95814
August 3, 2001
Honorable Sheila Kuehl,
We are requesting that you assist us in calling for an audit
of the LA Superior Court Judges Association and the Superior
Court Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund. It appears from
documents included with this letter that the Superior Court
Judges Association maintained a checking account, yet
neither the IRS nor the County of Los Angeles claim any
knowledge of this account. It appears that the Judges
Association put on seminars and co-sponsored events with the
Los Angeles County Bar Association, and registration fees
from these events went into this abovementioned fund.
There is a possibility of impropriety that needs to be
investigated because the attorneys attending these functions
regularly appear in front of these judges, and the checking
account seemed to be used for purposes unrelated to court
administration. Bank records show that this account reached
almost $80,000 in August of 1991. Several of the copies of
cancelled checks included with the attached material are for
"Cash," and the amounts are not trivial. The small number
of checks for cash that CA NOW was able to obtain total over
$4,000. In addition, there are checks to country clubs and
jewelry stores. Further questions are raised by numerous
checks by Los Angeles attorney made out directly to the
"Judges Trust Fund." Given that the account appears to have
been used for personal reasons, it seems highly improper for
practicing attorneys to be paying money into this checking
account.
In 1997, after Insight Magazine published an expose on the
checking account, the Judges filed articles of
incorporation. The address of the nonprofit, however, is
the Central Courthouse in Los Angeles. CA NOW questions
whether is it appropriate for the judges of the Superior
Court to be operating a private nonprofit corporation out of
a county government building. The name on the articles of
incorporation and the checking account is the LA Superior
Court Judges Association. It appears, however, that this
account may be a continuation of the Miscellaneous Expense
Fund, since the Bank of America records indicate that the
Association has been a member since 1962, despite being
incorporated in 1997.
Regardless of whether this account is the same as the
Miscellaneous Expense Fund, the use that this account was
put to raises even more questions. It appears from the
attached documents that attorneys wishing to be employed as
Child Visitation Monitors were required to complete a class
offered by the Court. Attorneys attending these classes
made out checks to the "Family Court Services Spec. Fund"
but the checks were deposited into the LA Superior Court
Judges Association checking account.
In an effort to gather as much information as possible, the
various administrative departments in Los Angeles County
were ask to identify any records they had of the LA Superior
Court Judges Association. The County Counsel for Los
Angeles responded that there were no records transferring
the right to use the County tax payer ID number to the LA
Superior Court Judges Association, nor is there any record
of a fictitious name state having been filed. It appears
that the County of Los Angeles has no knowledge of the LA
Superior Court Judges Association.
Obviously this is a complex matter. CA NOW does not have
the resources to fully investigate this matter, and is
hesitant to make allegations. The appearance, however, is
that a group of judges within the Los Angeles Superior Court
are operating a checking account and a business that is
essentially "off the books," with no oversight from any
regulatory agency, and receiving money from attorneys who
are practicing in their courtrooms. To those of us on the
outside, this appears highly improper, if not illegal. For
these reason, we respectfully ask for your help seeking an
audit. [...]
Sincerely,
Helen Grieco
CA NOW Executive Director
. California National Organization for Women
canow.org/famlaw_report/audit_ltr.pdf Bold emphasis added.
Some Documentation of the Helen Grieco Allegations
Preliminary attempts to verify the Helen Grieco allegations
above have led me to documentation which supports the
allegations, as is illustrated in the case of the two checks
below which happen to total to $6,750:
In July 1994, [Marvin] Bryer challenged the internal finance
auditor of the family court, Gregory Pentoney, to turn over
all records of donations to the court from members of the
Los Angeles County bar. It was in those records that he
found two "donation" checks totaling $6,750 to the judges'
fund, requisitioned through the bar association by the
mother of the man Bryer's daughter was resisting in her
custody case. This was regarded as compromising
family-court judges in Los Angeles County from hearing the
case and it was moved to Orange County.
. Kelly Patricia O'Meara, Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?,
Insight Magazine, 03-May-1999,
johnnypumphandle.com/cc/bryr0910.htm#tortclaim
These two checks turn out to be for the sums of $3,848 and
$2,902, requisitioned by Pat Higgins, the "mother of the man
Bryer's daughter was resisting." As Pat Higgins may have
been an employee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association,
no impropriety can be imputed merely from her having
requisitioned the two checks as below, though impropriety of
other kinds might be imputed. The several documents
relating to the first check for $3,848 are outlined in blue
below, and relating to the second check for $2,902 are
outlined in red.
First, Pat Higgins requisitions the two checks from the Los
Angeles County Bar Association:
1. for the sum of $3,848 required for 31-Jul-1991 to be made
out to the Family Court Services Special Fund;
2. for the sum of $2,902 required for 16-Apr-1992 to be made
out to Family Court Services.
We see next the Los Angeles County Bar Association writing
the two checks as requested - for the amounts requested, to
the agencies requested, and only a few days after the date
required:
It is the backs of the two checks that present our first
serious anomaly - that they were deposited not in the FAMILY
COURT SERVICES SPECIAL FUND or FAMILY COURT SERVICES, as
would have been expected, but rather in the JUDGES' MISC EXP
FUND. This is possibly the sort of transaction that Helen
Grieco was referring to in her letter above when she wrote
Attorneys attending these classes made out checks to the
"Family Court Services Spec. Fund" but the checks were
deposited into the LA Superior Court Judges Association
checking account.
Finally, we discover confirmation that the two checks were
deposited in the SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE
FUND bank account, the first check on 09-Aug-1991 and the
second on 23-Apr-1992.
Also, the balance totalling $75,438.59 in the first
statement below supports Helen Grieco's assertion above that
Bank records show that this account reached almost $80,000
in August of 1991:
The following checks to Breamer Country Club ($300), and to
Norman Goodman & Co. ($420.56), may correspond to Helen
Grieco's statement that In addition, there are checks to
country clubs and jewelry stores:
I do not have documents corresponding exactly to Helen
Grieco's statements questioning the formal existence of the
two funds in question - Family Court Services and Judges
Miscellaneous Expense - or questioning their registration
with tax authorities, but do have a few documents pointing
in that same direction - in the first place, that the Family
Court Services Special Fund is fictitious:
And that the following entities have never been granted
tax-exempt status:
1. Judges' Miscellaneous Expense Fund
2. Judges Trust Fund Accounting
3. Family Court Services Special Fund
4. Family Court Services
And perhaps most damaging of all, that when the LASCJA does
present a Tax ID (EIN 95-6000927), it is unlawfully that of
the County:
Law-enforcement sources are nervous and concerned about the
LASCJA accounts. They and county officials tell Insight not
the least of the concerns is that for years county
employees, paid by the taxpayers, were at the same time
working on the LASCJA's books. This is because before
filing for federal tax-exempt status in late 1997, the
LASCJA was using the federal employer-identification number,
or EIN, of Los Angeles County, which in turn covered the
fact that the judges were not paying taxes on the outside
income they moved through their association.
. Kelly Patricia O'Meara, Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?,
Insight Magazine, 03-May-1999
www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/bryr0910.htm Bold emphasis
added.
Commentary on the LASCJA Slush Fund is Both Widespread and
Uncomplimentary
Online material is available on the LASCJA slush fund
scandal, most of it bringing the administration of justice
in Los Angeles into disrepute, as for example the following:
* Kelly Patricia O'Meara, Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?,
Insight Magazine, 03-May-1999
www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/bryr0910.htm
* Kelly Patricia O'Meara, New Scandals in L.A. Court,
Insight Magazine, 12-Nov-1999 nafcj.org/Page14.html
* Troy Anderson, Gilding the Gavel, Daily News
groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/message/328
* Kelly Patricia O'Meara, A Financial Fiasco Is in the
Making, Insight Magazine, 12-Aug-2002
www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/161202.ht
ml
* California National Organization for Women, Court Cancer
Metastasizes anow.org/famlaw_report/court_cancer.pdf.
* Troy Anderson, Judges' Fund Criticized in Audit,
www.canow.org/news/goodnews.html
* Party Time for Los Angeles Judges,
www.nationalcoalition.net/Judges/Party%20time%20for%20Los%20
Angeles%20judges.htm
* Helen Grieco letter to Sheila Kuehl, California National
Organization for Women (CA NOW), 03-Aug-2001
canow.org/famlaw_report/audit_ltr.pdf
* Child Custody Scandal in Los Angeles,
www.fathermag.com/news/2762-child-custody.shtml
The "Independent Audit" is Unconvincing
I understand that an audit into the LASCJA slush fund was
conducted by the accounting firm of Simpson & Simpson, and
which did lead to changes aimed at reducing abuse, though
the audit stands out less for what it did accomplish than
for what it did not. The audit did not lead to any LASC
judges being prosecuted, or being fired or disciplined, or
paying penalties for tax evasion, or even being asked to
make up unpaid taxes. No court decisions were overturned as
a result of any discovery of improper influence exercised
through the slush fund. A more credible investigation would
have used search warrants to seize documents, would have
subpoenaed witnesses, and would have cut deals - powers of
the sort that are not often wielded by accounting firms, for
which reason the Simpson & Simpson "independent audit" might
be viewed by some as less of a definitive investigation than
a whitewash, particularly in view of the loss of trust that
accounting firms have suffered in the wake of the Arthur
Anderson-Enron debacle.
A Dark Cloud Hangs Over Those Connected to the LASCJA Slush
Fund
Given the continuing circulation of allegations of
impropriety concerning the LASCJA slush fund, combined with
the perfunctory Simpson & Simpson "independent audit," a
cloud of disrepute continues to hang over the Los Angeles
Superior Court as a whole, and most especially over those
judges who were most closely associated with the management
of the fund, perhaps judges like yourself, as evidenced by
your high signing authority on the Security Pacific National
Bank's signature card.
A Very Black Cloud Follows Those Complicit in Document
Spoliation
That cloud of disrepute is particularly black over all those
complicit in the spoliation of the following seven litigant
submissions in the pending case of Rambam v Prytulak
BC271433. I ask you yet again as Supervising Judge of the
Civil Division to exert your efforts to restoring these
documents to the trial record, and bringing to justice those
who have lost the capacity to distinguish between the lawful
exercise of judicial power and its usurpation.
1. Motion-to-Quash-B dated 27-May-2002
www.ukar.org/temp/quash02.html
2. Prytulak-Query-B dated 14-Jun-2002
www.ukar.org/temp/query01.html
3. Motion-to-Quash-C dated 29-Aug-2002, accompanied by a
money order for US$193
www.ukar.org/temp/quash03.html
4. Rambam-Objection-C dated 03-Sep-2002
www.ukar.org/temp/obj03sep.html
5. Prytulak-Reply-C dated 13-Sep-2002, accompanied by a
money order for US$23
www.ukar.org/temp/rep13sep.html
6. Prytulak-Reply-D3 dated 05-Nov-2002
www.ukar.org/temp/rep05nov.html
7. Prytulak-Reply-D7 dated 21-Nov-2002
www.ukar.org/temp/rep21nov.html
What Does it Take to Stage Rambam v Prytulak?
Perhaps you will find it understandable that when I see
myself being railroaded, I ask the question of who exactly
are the people who are railroading me. What I begin to
discover is that they are people with qualities requisite to
the task.
It takes a court capable of perhaps thousands of tainted
criminal convictions - as I have discussed in my letter to
you of 24-Nov-2002, titled Relevance of Rampart Scandal to
Rambam v Prytulak - to suppress or destroy seven documents
in Rambam v Prytulak. It takes a court capable of creating
the LASCJA slush fund - as I have been outlining above - to
refuse for eight months to evaluate its own jurisdictio
Your e-mail address: justice4none@aol.com
Hyperlinks: http://www.ukar.org/temp/klausn06.html