[LAAMN] court report on Casey’s Mom, Lee Peters

[LAAMN] court report on Casey’s Mom, Lee Peters cp Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:51:23 -0700 COURT REPORT ON LEE PETERS NOTICE: We return to court on Wednesday and Thursday, June 29 and 30, from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. PLEASE JOIN US. Your moral support really makes a difference. Thanks to the 20 people who showed their support for Lee last Wednesday. [They ranged in age from 13-year-old Sebastian Mayorga to 87-year-old Leland Lee.] GOOD NEWS: No permanent conservator for Lee Peters was appointed on June 15. This was a victory, as it was widely expected that the temporary conservator would win permanent status that day. Another victory was that visitation was extended from one hour to two hours per day. This allows time for a more leisurely interaction with Lee. BAD NEWS: On the negative side, Lee Peters is still being held captive where she does not want to be. She is becoming less ambulatory and is losing mental focus. WHAT HAPPENED IN COURT: On June 15, a hearing was held in Los Angeles Superior Court in the matter of the proposed Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Lee Peters. The afternoon began with a real-life courtroom drama, as the attorney for Lee’s son and longtime caregiver, Casey Peters, asked to approach the bench. After 10-15 minutes of quiet consultation, the judge announced that the attorney was dismissed from the case and that Casey and Marilyn Peters would have to represent themselves In Pro Per. The judge struck a plethora of paperwork that had been compiled and filed by Marilyn and Casey, but let it be known that the evidence could be reintroduced. Casey Peters made an opening statement some 40 minutes long, reviewing the chain of events that… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE

Judicial Corruption SBX-211 Cover-up by California Government update

Judicial Corruption – SBX-211 Cover-up by California Government update A brief overview of the Richard I. Fine Judicial Abuse Crime Follow-up comments to an LA Times Article posted below: Note Judge Yaffe’s Order, where he states in pertinent part:   “… He refuses to even discuss his obligations to the judgment creditor, but portrays himself as a lone hero who is being incarcerated because he has exposed a vast conspiracy of over 400 judges of this court who are dishonestly collecting money to which they are not entitled. This contention has now been rejected at all levels of the Federal and California Judiciary.” Clearly part of that passage is misleading and arguably could be called false, as the case of Sturgeon v. LA County, et. al. (2008) 167 Cal.App. 4th 670, rev. denied, in fact found and held that the double benefit payments that the LA County Superior Court judges had been receiving since 1988 were – UNCONSTITUTIONAL – or illegal.  Wouldn’t this fact give a reader of the article a totally different perspective on what Mr Fine was doing?  On what Judge Yaffe was doing?  On what the other courts –  at all levels of the Federal and California Judiciary – were doing?  Wouldn’t basic journalistic standards require this fact be reported in the article?Of course, as most of you are aware, the LA County judges, led by Chief Justice Ronald George, promptly ran up to Sacramento and submitted a a bill – SBX-211 – to the legislature while they were in an emergency budget session (which forbids them from considering extraneous bills) attempting to deal with a state budget shortfall around $19BILLION.  SBX-211 would circumvent Sturgeon , thereby allowing the double benefit payments to continue and also would give… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE