Wednesday, October 14, 2009

conformed copy filed on August 17th- stop wasting your money on bribes

Al Sp


Los Angeles, CA 90046


In Propria Persona






Al Sp


Case No. 8CA10541


Violation of Due Process,: Procurement by Fraud, and Perjury Under California Code Of Civil Procedure Section 473(d) And under Rule 60 (A) (b) 3 and 4, and article 6 (1)AND (2)

To the U.S Constitution articles of agreement and confederation thus declaring to be null and void the court orders or rulings granted on August 12, 2009 by JUDGES JOHN MARTINEZ AND SAMANTHA JESSNER


NOW COMES the the above-entitled court, the Defendant herein, In Propria Persona, and moves this Honorable Court to vacate the void orders and rulings issued by Judges Jessner and Mertinez that took place in Division 40 and Division 55 on August 12, 2009., and for other relief.


It is hard to know where to begin when August 12, 2009 started with a legal ambush. The defendant was told by the clerk, Ms. Susan Rios, via phone that Ms. Waxler was preparing oppositions to her motions and by law was allowed ten days to respond. Though this was curious in light of the fact that Ms. Waxler or Kalpakian, or both, did not seem cognizant of such rules re: filing, when they filed there opposition to the Motion to Traverse on July 8th of 2009 after Business hours.

2 The due process violations engendered by the legal ambush(no notice, false information, phony illegal hearing etc.) are obvious . Judge Martinez who ruled on those motions was an assigned judge, who by all indications lost jurisidiction, when he allowed an “oral hearing,” to proceed despite the fact that Sp was waiting on the opposition motions of Waxler et al and no notice was given her.

Judge Martinez then ruled in the favor of the prosecution on all motions, without basis in law, There is bountiful precedent to establish that the rulings made by Judge Martinez on August 12, 2009 are Void, and that Judge Jessner and Martinez violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics by allowing unnoticed hearing despite the defendant’s vociferous objections in open court .

3 There was no basis for any the secret ex parte hearing or public ones . And, the orders are void because Notice wasn’t given the defendant but in the instance Ms. Waxler or Ms. Cohen Kalpakian attempt to further lie about any necessity for “extraordinary relief.” It must be known:

a. Sp has no history of violence and never was violent with Notaro or anyone. Notaro is a liar.

b. Accusation of “push” by Mathilde Notaro in August of 2007 has been shown to be a lie. Evidence available.

c. Neither the defendant or any member of her family said or did anything that would be regarded by any reasonable person as threatening and any such accusation is done only to bias the judge



a.The e-mail communications between Sp and Waxler and any voice recording or even characterization even of why Ms. Waxler would need the help of this “Threat Management Unit.” Have the TMU testify to their assessment or why they didn’t come to court to assist Ms. Waxler(On August 12,2009) or Ms. Notaro(at the restraining order hearing.)

b. Bring in Mother and hear her voice and see how threat could be assessed when she is obviously just a very innocent woman and can’t get over the corruption she is witnessing. Show Mother’s criminal record, and testimony as to what she said to Waxler and what Waxler said back on the phone. Have Ms. Waxler testify under oath and have her explain why all her actions in court have negated her false accusations.

c. Any evidence to support any of the slanderous statements made by Waxler and Kalpakian about Sp on August 12th 2009 must be presented in a noticed and fair hearing.

d. A review of all the motions filed by Sp and an objective opinion as to their viability or if they do indeed bolster Kalpakian’s argument as to the competency of the defendant.

e. a transcript or notes or anything regarding what exactly occurred ex parte when Judge Samanth Jessner signed the search warrants, ordered the case to Division 55 etc, and the same for what happened on July 28 when Villar signed a search warrant knowing that a traverse was filed and a hearing due. What transpired with third judge Edmund Wilcox. Sp demands to know what happened in all those ex parte hearings.

f. The testimony of The psychiatrist that the defendant mentioned on the record before Judge Jessner on August 12th, 2009

This list is by no means exhaustive.




1. Judges Martinez and Jessner, pursuant to California Civil code 473(d) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 60 made the mistake of issuing an order conflicting with the supreme Law of the land, therefore there rulings and the order granted by Judge Jessner and the rulings of Martinez on unnoticed motions , on August 12, 2009 is void ab-initio. 2.The U.S. Supreme Court stated this principle of law, Courts are constituted by authority, and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not void able, but simply void, AND THIS IS EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL.” [Emphasis added]. Vallely v. Northern Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 (1920). See also Old Wayne Mut. I. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L. Ed, 1170, 1189, (1850); Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.Ed. 608, 617 (1808);

3. There is a misconception by some attorneys and judges that only a judge may declare an order void, but this is not the law: (1) there is no statute nor case law that supports this position, and (2) should there be any case law that allegedly supported this argument, that case would be directly contrary to the law established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 (1920) as well as other state courts, e.g. by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Miller. Supra. A party may have a court vacate a void order, but the void order is still void Ab-Initio, whether vacated or not; a piece of paper does not determine whether an order is void, it just memorializes it, makes it legally binding and voids out all previous orders returning the case to the date prior to action leading to void Ab-Initio. While a Judge may issue orders to control his court, he has no lawful authority to issue any order which violates the Supreme Law of the Land.

4. Pursuant to the Vallely court decision, a void order does not have to be reversed by any court to be a void order. Courts have also held that, since a void order is not a final order, but is in effect no order at all, it cannot even be appealed. Courts have held that a void decision is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final. Consistent with this holding, in 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that, “Since such jurisdictional defect deprives not only the initial court but also the appellate court of its power over the case or controversy, to permit the appellate court to ignore it. …[Would be an] unlawful action by the appellate court itself.” Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991); Miller, supra. Following the same principle, it would be an unlawful action for a court to rely on an order issued by a judge who did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore the order he issued was Void Ab-Initio.

5.The lack of jurisdiction to enter an order under any of these circumstances renders the order a complete nullity and it may be "impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, anywhere, at any time, or in any manner." Barnes v. Am. Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 705, 130 S.E. 902, 906 (1925). A judgment obtained by extrinsic or collateral fraud is Also void Ab-Initio. Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987).

6. THAT THE JUDGE WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR VIOLATED A PERSON’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, or where fraud was involved in the attempted procurement of jurisdiction, is sufficient for an order to be void. Potenz Corp. v. Petrozzini, 170 Ill. App. 3d 617, 525 N.E. 2d 173, 175 (1988). In instances herein, the law has stated that the orders are void Ab-Initio and not voidable because they are already void actions taken by a court which are in error. An order is void Ab-Initio if entered by a court if the character of the order is such that the court had no power to render it, or if the mode of procedure used by the court was one that the court could "not lawfully adopt." Evans v. Smyth-Wythe Airport Comm'n, 255 Va. 69, 73, 495 S.E.2d 825, 828 (1998)(quoting Anthony v. Kasey, 83 Va. 338, 340, 5 S.E. 176, 177 (1887)). Due Process is a requirement of the U.S. Constitution. Violation of the United States Constitution by a judge deprives that person from acting as a judge under the law. He/She is acting as a private person, and not in the capacity of being a judge (and, therefore, has no jurisdiction). This principle of law was stated by the U.S. Supreme Court as “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply VOID, AND THIS IS EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL.” [Emphasis added]. Vallely v. Northern Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 (1920). See also Old Wayne Mut. I. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L. Ed, 1170, 1189, (1850); Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.Ed. 608, 617 (1808).

7.According to California Civil Code of Procedure 473(d) The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may,on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.

8. A void order may be challenged in any court, at any time, and even by third parties. A void order has no legal force or effect. As one court stated, a void order is equivalent to a blank piece of paper

9. While a Judge may issue orders to control his court, he has no lawful authority to issue any order which violates the Supreme Law of the Land. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that all entities have the mandatory right of an adequate, complete, effective, fair, full meaningful and timely hearing. That the United States Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, held that any judge who acts without jurisdiction is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101, S. Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980): Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821); and that access to the court. The Fourteenth Amendment and the fifth amendement to the U.S. Constitution guarantees Due Process and Equal Protection to all. “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law;

10. The Court did not have credible, reliable evidence before it when it reached the decision -- which makes the granting of such a degrading order particularly egregious. Judge Jessner said that this would help me as it would explain my charges, but the defendant submits that there are many more legal, and time and cost effective ways to accomplish that and is cognizant of the disingenuousness of Judge Jessner’s statements regarding her granting of this order. )

11.Knowing that Sp had asked to Recuse Judge Villar for cause, Waxler and Cohen-Kalpakian nevertheless started their ex parte arguments before Judge Jessner, making irrelevant, inadmissable, and unsupported allegations in order to knowingly and intentionally to prejudice the Court against SP, to knowingly interfere with SP due process rights,. Attorney Waxler and Kalpakian knew that a Petition for Change of Judge takes precedence over all other matters.

12,Without subject-matter jurisdiction, Judge Jessner heard arguments that could not lawfully be presented before a Court, violating Sp’s due process rights. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 24 (1908). Judge Jessner's conduct at the hearing unlawfully tolerated Waxler and Cohen-Kalpakian’s slanderous and spurious allegations. Judge Jessner has taken an oath to protect the legal, civil, and Constitutional Rights of all litigants before her; Judge Jessner acted in violation of the law, her oath, and the Supreme Law of the Land.

13.City Attorney’s Jennifer Waxler and Felise Cohen Kalpakian violated Sp 's due process rights by making such allegations which only purpose was to prejudice this Court. Judge Jessner connived with these two prosecutors, by not protecting Sp’s due process rights in allowing Waxler and Kalpakian to make her false allegations, without prior proof of the validity of the allegations. Judge Jessner did not act impartially; she engaged in acts in violation of Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Ethiocs. Although attorney Cohen Kalpakian had no standing in the new proceeding, she appeared before the multiple judges involved at these unnoticed and illegal hearings that took place on August 12, 2009. Ms. Jennifer Waxler and Ms. Felise Cohen Kalpakian made knowing, deliberate, and intentional misrepresentations to the court.

14. Since Judge Jessener did not have any lawful authority to assign the cause to Judge John Martinez and since no specific date and time of hearing was made a part of the purported order, all order or ruling made on August 12, 2009 are void.(the second ex-parte purported order of Judge Jessner transferring the cause to Judge John Martinez for an unlawful hearing (all void orders, as SP was not served notice of the these hearing), (4) the ex- parte purported order from Jessener, a void order, as SP had not been noticed of the secret hearing), (5) the third ex-parte purported order from Judge Martinez returning the cause to Judge Jessner (a void order, as SP had not been noticed of the secret ex-parte meeting),

15.Since judicial officers Waxler and Kalpakian, Judges Jessner, and Judge John Martinez(And whomever else is involved and is not following the law,) know that any order issued without notice and an opportunity to be heard violates due process and is void (Goudy v. Hall, 30 Ill. 109, 116 (1863); their participation in issuing orders without prior proper service to SP made their orders void.


All secret ex-parte hearings deprive SP of her legal, civil, and Constitutional Right to notice and to the opportunity to be heard under both the California and United States Constitutions, and are in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Not only are any orders issued under said situations null and void, of no legal force or effect, but they further evidence the fact that the judge(s) who participate in secret and even public ex-parte hearings have not acted impartially, have violated their oath of office, and have not shown due reverence for the Constitution or the rights of the accused. The judge(s) holding secret and even public(which indicates an arrogance that is chilling) ex-parte hearings.

Attorney Waxler and Kalpakian engaged in judicial manipulation. Waxler and Kalpakian engaged in actions to violate SP's due process rights to be promptly presented with a copy of any order issued by the court before any hearing.

. Without prior notice to SP and with no standing in the cause for substitution of Judge Jessner, Waxler and Kalpakian apparently appeared for a second time ex-parte before Judge Jessner on August 12, 2009.

SP was not given any notice of Mary Lou Villars purported orders to Judge Jessner’s and then Judge Jessner’s purported orders that assigned the cause to Judge John Martinez ,and then back to Jessner for another unnoticed and unlawful “hearing.” . Without notice to SP, that order is void.

Attorneys Jennifer Waxler and Kalpakian appeared ex-parte in secret and ex parte in full view of those in Division 40. Not only was Waxler and Kalpakian's appearances before Judges Villar, Jessner, and Martinez ex parte, but the hearing was not scheduled and was without notice to SP, and was therefore a secret hearing. Waxler and Kalpakian knew that SP had not been noticed; perhaps Waxler and Kalpakian did not inform Judge Jessner but Sp made it her business to inform both Judge Jessner and Judge Martinez, on the record ,what was occurring in their courtrooms.

At no time was a hearing specifically set or scheduled to occur that day or any other day. There was no legal requirement for SP to appear on August 12, 2009, except before Judge Villar for a pre trial conference which was not to include any hearings on any motions but rather a scheduling meeting on when those motions would be heard.

It is well settled law that a judge does not have any discretion, but a duty, to know the law and to comply with the law, when the law has been ruled upon by a higher court. People v. Gersch, 135 Ill.2d 384, 553 N.E.2d 281 (1990); Agricultural Transp. Ass'n. v. Carpentier, 2 Ill.2d 19, 116 N.E.2d 863 (1963). Any act contrary to the above would be an action without lawful authority, a violation of the Criminal and Civil Codes of Califorina and the Federal Constitution and of the judge's oath.

Judge Jessner had a legal and fiduciary duty to be certain that SP had been lawfully noticed and served. She had no lawful authority to proceed with the ex-parte hearing unless she was certain that SP had been noticed and served.

Judge Jessner did nothing but grant the wishes of Waxler and Kalpakian after they violated Sp’s legal, civil, and Constitutional Rights, and dignity.

On August 12, 2009 Sp was sent by Judge Jessner to Division 55 for unnoticed hearings on five motions. There was no notice given to Sp and in fact she was led to believe by the court clerks that no such hearings were scheduled according to the minutes and according to Judge Villar. Judge Jessjner issued a void order based on the void orders of judge Villar. It is well settled law that all orders based on a void order are void.

Since Sp was never served any notice of a Notice of Motion set or scheduled for August 12,2009, and because she says so on the record before being ordered to Division 55, Judge Jessner knew that Sp had not been served with legal notice. Judge Jessner either connived, acted in concert, or conspired with Waxler and Kalpakian to deprive Sp of her due process rights, or she was incompetent in the law. In either case, a Judicial Inquiry Board complaint will be filed against Judges Villar, Martinez, and Jessner incorporating the additional charge of holding secret, unlawful ex-parte hearings; a copy of this complaint will be filed in other courts as Sp now sees what Waxler and Kalpakian are capable of and how this is tolerated by these judges.

Waxler and Kalpaklian knew that they were placing the judges in a position of engaging in an act in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Waxler and Kalpakian acted to bring the legal profession and the courts into disrepute. Waxler and Kalpakian knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately engaged in actions in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Waxler and Kalpakian have impugned the integrity of the Supreme Court, by attempting to make a mockery of the citations to the Court's decision


Even if Judge Jessner did not connive with, conspire with, and acted in concert with Waxler and Kalpakian in holding these unlawful ex-parte hearings on August 12, 2009 Waxler and Kalpakian, under the Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge Jessner or anyone witnessing the very public illegal ex-parte must comply with Canon 3 and report both attorneys for unethical conduct. Either Judge Jessner does not know the law or she knowingly, intentionally and deliberately engaged in an action to deprive Sptizberg of her legal, civil and Constitutional Rights. The failure of Judge Jessner to report all guilty parties for conducting the ex-parte secret hearing manifests either judicial incompetency or connivance at Waxler and Kalpakian's illegal conduct. Either way the result was the same; denial of SP's due process guarantees.

Judge Jessner engaged in acts in violation of Judicial Conduct Rule Cannon 3 in that "A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding ... ".


The law imposes a duty upon this Court to vacate/expunge all void orders. Judge Jessner engaged in a secret, unlawful ex-parte hearings, and a publicly witnessed unlawful ex parte hearings, and issued a void order. Judge Jessner should vacate/expunge her void order of August 12, 2009 and should recuse herself from any further handling of this matter. Judge John Martinez should set aside any ruling made on these void orders and also recuse himself for cause from any further involvement in this case.

It is reasonable for any person to conclude that, based on her acts, supra, Judge Jessner also violated CANON ONE in that her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Similarly, any other Court or entity insisting to uphold such an illegal order would be in violation of the US Constitution and therefore all officers of the court now involved with prosecuting this void order will be at risk for such censure, and may be subsequently arrested for these violations of law. Since a public servant must serve the law, and it was broken by the public servants in this case, they are acting as trespassers of the law.

The Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by allowing an illegal ex parte, and accepting the slander of Waxler and Kalpakian as fact in an unnoticed hearing. Therefore, the motion to set aside the judgment should be granted.

WHEREFORE, SP prays that this Court will:

A. vacate/expunge the void orders of August 12, 2009

B. report City attorney’s Waxler and Kalpakian for her engaging in actions that bring the courts into disrepute,

C. sanction Waxler and Kalpakian for their unethical conduct,

D. disqualify Judge Jessner, Martinez or Villar(Or any other judge that will be found to not be following the lawy) from hearing and considering any aspect of Sp’s case

E. grant Sp all other relief that this court finds equitable and just.

Respectfully submitted,

Al Sp


1.The prosecution, possessing no chance of conviction if due and substantive process is followed, plagued by a mentally unstable “victim’s” non stop contradictions, fraudulent and malicious search warrants ,and called to task by the non frivolous motions filed by the defendant begin a series of slanders, lies, and misstatements in order to further try to bias the court or even to get the case dismissed(in the most cynical way imaginable) ( i.e. Have her declared mentally incompetent ,dismiss the case and she can’t sue etc). They break laws and cause Sp public humiliation (Many PD’s and defendants and prosecutors were in the courtroom) by saying that threat management units have had to be called (Which begs the question—what did the threat management unit say and why weren’t they in court?) for Sp’s behavior towards Ms. Waxler. Ms. Kalpakian states that Sp might be a threat to others and herself, and when this seems to not get Judge Jessner to take the defendant into custody (As the extraordinary ex parte permitted by Jessner would indicate was their intent, Kalpakian attempts to characterize the motions filed by Sp as a product of some addled mind (“nonsensical, not relevant etc.) More begging questions: Why doesn’t either prosecutor agree to read these motions after Sp says, “Read them out loud,” in response to Kalpakian’s comments about these motions or why doesn’t the judge read them if she is going to make such a serious orderf.

What possible evidence (required by law) is presented to take such extraordinary measures (ex parte communication and then a prosecutor asking for a competency hearing etc.)

2.The defendant is allowed to pick her own expert after the state evaluates her and is allowed paid transport to the facility where her competence will be judged by someone she would be crazy to think is unbiased. This judge permits an illegal ex parte hearing and in a decision that couldn’t be described as Solomonic—grants this malicious and malignant request in favor of the prosecution-- and aware that taxpayers will pay for this void (and vile) order when the city and state can ill afford it and wouldn’t agree to it if they had a say.

3. The defendant is aware of ex parte laws and ,and I began to follow the prosecutors to the bench after they asked to approach the bench. I was told by the Prosecutors, “NO.” in a very intimidating . As I have been threatened with bailiffs for no reason and am aware that dirty tactics are being employed, I stayed put. I watched and saw the judge look concerned at as these two approaching women, “Ex parte?” Yet, Judge Jessner allowed this. A PD witnessing this motioned to me and said, “ Ex parte? Go up there. You are allowed to be up there.” I knew this to be true but felt that false arrest was too possible so I just watched in horror(As did many onlookers) as this transpired in full view of anyone present on August 12, 2009 in Division 40 .

4.The PD in his capacity as a “friend of the court” said something else and a young man in a blue blazer and with short dark hair (I could identify him from the back and from a process of elimination of what attorneys were in the courtroom that day.) very threateningly told him to stop assisting me. Therefore, this prosecutor(presumably) who came by to intimidate this” friend of the court” was acting in ways that require an immediate investigation as it is very grievous and telling misconduct in light of the fact that these two city attorneys are trying to convince this judge that I “Need Help” and yet when help is offered me-- intimidation ensues.

5. The defendant does not fear a jury trial if the rules of due process are respected, but she has perceived that the trauma of seeing the Constitution ignored (by those she was taught to trust and revere) very well may continue to the appellate process and beyond if sensible measures are not taken by anyone with the power to take those measures.

6. Nothing of any substance was offered in the on the record hearing that would allow the granting of such an order, and what was said in the ill considered ex partes have not been made available to the defendant. Ms. Kalpakian seemed oblivious to the rules and spiteful as she slandered me in front of many people and since she did it by fraud she is committing criminal acts. This should not have been tolerated by a Tribunal,

7. The malicious nature of this request for a competency hearing, and the illegal ex parte should have been realized and handled accordingly by Judge Jessner, as it was very obvious to many witnesses that day -- as these were flagrant violations of non esoteric laws.

8.The defendant submits than any reasonable person would conclude that Sp is more than competent to represent herself and the prosecution’s attempt to suggest otherwise is the transparent and repugnant result of their inability to take responsibility for filing false charges.

9. Jennifer Waxler and Jill Cohen- Kalpakian have lied to the judge, have committed malpractice (Candor before the Tribunal, Fraud, Treason etc.) and should be sanctioned.

I declare under penalty of perjury that everything I say is true


1. I never spoke to anyone at the City Attorney’s office or to Ms. Waxler in a manner that would inspire any reasonable person to react as she has. She is lying to the court.

2.Ms. Waxler and Kalpakian are lying and using a dirty tactics (trying to cast my daughter as scary when the opposite is the case) . My daughters has a brilliant mind and gentle soul and this whole vile charade needs to end already. My daughter is saner or more mentally competent than Kalpakian or Waxler could ever dream to be.

3.My daughter was not pro per from the beginning and many can attest to that fact. In fact it was only until many months and sure that she was not getting the help that would be required that she was forced to go pro per. Ms. Waxler was very mistaken or was purposely trying to deceive the court when she misinformed the court about the legal representation of my daughter. Much evidence exists that my daughter tried her hardest with all counsel and that she got very unlucky. This all can clearly be seen in E-mails to any legal counsel.

4. My daughter was first given Anan Desai as a PD at arraignment. My daughter was very pleased with him but he was not allowed to take her case. Then came Jose Ruvalcaba who was transferred a short time later, then came Franica Tawn who perhaps tried her best under the circumstances, but who ultimately, was incapable of protecting my daughter’s rights. Then she was told by Kratu Patel that a conflict of interest existed and then this was taken back.

Then came two strange charges and I convinced my daughter to get a lawyer as I saw that she was dealing with immoral and dangerous individuals . Mr. Williams told her that this whole case was a joke, a waste of the taxpayers money, and was anxious to sue the guilty parties civilly as soon as possible. For four months all he did was stipulate to continuances, made promises, and then it reached a point where it was untenable. For Ms. Waxler to try and use his unfortunate (and well documented ) experience with these attorneys to bias the judge(make her look “crazy” Pro per for different reasons etc.) is disgusting. More importantly, Ms. Waxler’s facts are all wrong and this is not “She said. She said) this was available to Judge Jessner on August 12, 2009, as my daughter told me she made statements that indicated that this information was before her.

I declare under penalty of perjury that everything I say is true.

Henya Sp


1. I witnessed Ms. Waxler smile at my sister in court, after she made the allegations against my sister, that prompted Judge Villar to cause any communication between the defense and the prosecution to be needlessly complicated. That and her body language indicate that she is lying to the court when she pretends to be threatened etc, and this is done solely to bias as she has no right to be prosecuting my isster.

2. A deputy City Attorney by the name of Martin Boags approached My sister and I on August 12,2009, and went out of his way to assist us with directions (to serve the Pitchess order filed with the court on August 12. 2009.) I can’t be sure of his motivations for coming to sit by us for an extended time , but it seems very odd that he would sit by us and attempt to help us in any way if my sister “ was a danger to other people.”

4. I know the facts of this case, am a witness, and I submit My sister and her loved ones will attempt to remedy these incessant miscarriages of justice by all legal means.

I decleare under penalty of perjury that everything I say is true,

Lauren Sp

Dated: August 14,2009 By:

Lauren Sp

Post a Comment

Stef Willen's Disaster, Literally.

In the history of publishing, there is a fascinating history of memoirs that get pulled from publication, after an eagle eyed reader or rea...