Skip to content

>Darwish – another racketeering case

July 17, 2008

>ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR RACKETEERING IN THE LA SUPERIOR COURT

Case name: Manouchehr Galdjie v Barbara Kramer Darwish and David Darwish
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC052737


This is yet another real property case, in this instance – a rental property. Blogger believes that real property fraud is the specialty of the racketeering enterprise at the Los Angeles Superior Court.

1) The victims of the racketeering in this case are Defendants. Blogger does not know either Plaintiffs or Defendants, but would be grateful for any information that would allow him to establish contact with Defendants:

  • Barbara Kramer Darwish
  • David Darwish

2) The record of this litigation stretches from 05/27/98 to 11/02/06. The length of this litigation alone should justify further investigation.

2) Judges or court officer in this case are listed below. The length of this list alone makes this case an extreme that should be investigated:

  • Alan B. Haber
  • Robert M. Letteau
  • David B. Finkel
  • John H. Reid
  • Candance D. Cooper
  • Paul G. Flynn
  • Patricia L. Collins
  • David J. Pasternak
  • Clerk (no name recorded), presiding in event
  • Retired Judge (no name recorded), presiding in event
  • Muni Judge (no name recorded), presiding in event
  • John L Segal
  • David J Pasternak, receiver

Comments:

1) With all of the above, not a single Assignment or Re-assignment Order is listed in this file.

2) No recusals or disqualifications are listed in this file. And yet, several motions to vacate are listed in this file, which imply some inordinate situations in the course of this litigation.

3) It appears that certain details were deleted from the record, yet no nunc pro tunc orders are listed in this file.

4) The paper court file of this case is overdue for transmission to the LA County archives, but it was not found there. Per the archive the paper court file is most likely stored by the Santa Monica Courthouse, outside of normal procedures.

Conclusions:

A reasonable person would conclude that the record in its current form is not the full and complete original record, but an adulterated record, where certain events were eliminated after being initially recorded. Yet no nunc pro tunc orders are listed in this file.

Notice:

Blogger does not hold any unique evidence. All evidence is distributed on a regular basis to several destination.

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s