Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

Subscribe to Journal

Saturday, August 19th 2006

10:44 PM

To: My Judges

August 19, 2006

 

The Honorable J. Michael Gunn,

The Honorable Martin A. Hildreth,

The Honorable Ernest Williams,

California Superior Court – County of San Bernardino

8303 North Haven Avenue

Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

 

Re:   JUSTICE DIVA v. GOON INVESTIGATIONS - CASE NO. RCV075900

 

Dear Judge Williams:

 

My name is Justice Ingrid Diva, and I am Plaintiff in the above referenced case. Dear Lawyer of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg was the attorney who represented me. My case was assigned to your respective departments.  Furthermore, since you were the presiding Judges in this case, and because nobody will help me, I felt perhaps maybe you can. I am seeking answers to a distressing problem that I hope will be corrected and brought to justice by either the State Bar after their second review of my complaint, or a neutral third party.

 

The grievances I tried to convey to the California State Bar pertain to unlawful representation by Dear Lawyer as he denied me Equal Protection of the Laws and Civil Due Process. In brief, Dear Lawyer denied me a meaningful opportunity to be heard in the matters pertaining to JUSTICE DIVA v GOON INVESTIGATIONS as he failed to provide me adequate notices and opportunities to respond to all of the Defendant’s Discovery requests and proceedings that occurred between January 12, 2005 and June 07, 2005. In addition, Dear Lawyer used improper influence, pressure, manipulation, intimidation as he coerced and bullied me into accepting and signing the Mediator’s proposed settlement offer of $41,000 after I declined the offer. Dear Lawyer then had the audacity to furnish me four versions of an incomplete, unsigned, and defective settlement agreement. The whereabouts of the original settlement agreement in its entirety remain to be unknown and is somewhere at large.

 

With that said, on March 06, 2006, I supplied the State Bar of California a 19 page written complaint, including 43 pounds of supplemental litigation documents that substantiate the above claims ( and more; this is just a brief overview); however, on May 18, 2006, the State Bar wrote to inform me my complaint against Dear Lawyer was closed. The State Bar concluded disciplinary action was not warranted because they lacked a sufficient amount of evidence to pursue charges against Dear Lawyer. I am confused as to how they reached the decision to close my complaint, especially after I sent them 43 pounds of concrete, tangible irrefutable evidence. My only guess is perhaps I failed to write my grievances in a manner that they could understand. You see, I have Dyslexia, a learning disability that’s recognized by the State of Wisconsin, and maybe my own communication deficiencies are to blame for their imprudence.

 

Needless to say, I had the most unpleasant and distressful task of spending the last 3 months, the entire summer, writing and preparing a formal written request to be reviewed by the State Bar for another review. The only thing I did different in my revised complaint was I researched and interpreted the laws for them, and that’s painfully evident in the 17 pages that I recently sent to the State Bar on August 16, 2006. (I enclosed a carbon copy of that document for you, as well as my initial attorney complaint.) This disturbs me because I didn’t think it was my responsibility to interpret the laws and apply them accordingly to my grievances. If this is the case then the California State Bar’s complaint process needs a serious revision because there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands of men and women who could be illiterate, disabled, blind, etc. who may very well have legitimate attorney complaints too. If they can’t read, then they can’t write, and vice versa. In any case, I am praying that this time I will get the State Bars attention and the answers to my grievances. 

 

Before I conclude my correspondence there are some questions I would like to ask as they have yet to be answered. My first question is for Judge Gunn. Judge Gunn, at a Case Management Conference on September 27, 2004, why did Dear Lawyer report to you and the courts that Mediation wasn’t completed because I lived in Pennsylvania? Why did he tell you this when I never lived, let alone visited the state of Pennsylvania?

 

Judge Williams, in Dear Lawyer Case Management Statement dated February 19, 2004 in question 10 (a) on page 2, he reported that he provided me an ADR information packet identified in rule 201.9 and that he reviewed ADR options with me when he didn’t. I never received an ADR packet from him to review and he didn’t review those options with me. Judge Williams, why did he lie to you, and why did he lie to Judge Gunn? Judge Gunn, Judge Hildreth, and Judge Williams, you need to understand that Dear Lawyer is old enough to be my father. I looked up to him, I respected him, and I listened to him. I always told him the truth even when the truth hurt, and even when it embarrassed me. I expected the same from him. I thought with him being a lawyer he’s obligated to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but he didn’t.

 

For almost three, long, ugly, sorrowful years of one loss right after the other, I lost my career, my home, my beloved Uncle David in California, my dignity, my sense of self, and two months before trial, when I least expected it, I lost my Dear Lawyer, and with that I lost my voice.  I honestly believed he was helping me, and looking out for my best interests, but he wasn’t. He was only looking out only for himself, and in the process of doing so, he hurt me, and he hurt me bad. Why did he do that?  Why did Dear Lawyer wait almost an entire year to file my complaint? Why did Dear Lawyer delay my mediation and depositions until November and December of 2004? Was my case neglected because his law firm was distracted by the State of California v. Scott Peterson, a murder trial that they were apart of? The timing of it is coincidental. Don't you think? in many ways. 

 

Then, near the end of December, Dear Lawyer dropped off the face of the earth. Apparently, a communication between him and Attorney Zeltzer revealed that he was backlogged with work due to a death in the family. Frankly, I don’t care if a close family member died in his family. This may sound harsh, but it’s reality. What happens at home stays at home. His personal problems shouldn’t have interfered in my case, but they did. Dear Lawyer works for a law firm. Why didn’t he ask for assistance or help from one of his colleagues?  Judge Williams, and Judge Gunn, why didn’t he talk to you? He should have asked for help, but he didn’t. Did he choose not to because he was too afraid to ask for help? That makes sense because then he would have exposed his secret of sitting around and doing nothing for almost three years. But, of course, when it was convenient for him to crawl out of his hole and come back to work in the middle of April 2005, the first thing he did was force me to sign something that I was in no condition to sign.

 

After all the time, costs, delays, and stress involved in delivering my testimony on two separate depositions including a mediation session where the Defendant’s weren’t even present nothing was accomplished. Why weren’t they present? Why wasn’t I given the opportunity to review and sign my second deposition? Why didn’t he sign and date both depositions? At mediation, Dear Lawyer proposed a settlement at the amount of $250,000. The Defendants said no, but at the end of Mediation, they conceded to the allegations I set forth in my complaint. Why did Dear Lawyer abandon me? Why didn’t he give me the opportunity to respond to the Defendant’s last deposition request, including the special form interrogatories that specifically asked how much money I had lost since October 14, 2002? In the first Case Management Statement, Dear Lawyer reported that my lost earnings equaled to approximately $60,000. Later, in the Defendant’s First or Second Set of Special Interrogatories, Dear Lawyer stated that an Economist would be hired to estimate the damage, but a year later, when I demanded an Economist as Dear Lawyer forced me to accept the Mediator’s proposal, he said I couldn’t have one. Why did he mislead me?  

 

Judge Williams, concerning the Defendant’s, “Opposition to Demurrer to Complaint, on February 26, 2004, you made a final ruling regarding the Defendant’s Opposition to Demurrer. First, I don’t understand the ruling. In reading your decision, I am confused as to what it means because the written text combined with the numbers on the lined legal paper makes it difficult for me to read and understand.  The text’s spatial formatting if anything aggravates my Dyslexia to the point where I can’t even summarize your ruling.  On the other hand, one thing I understand is that Dear Lawyer failed to show up at the hearing. Why did he do such thing? Why wasn’t he there to defend me? Most importantly, why wasn’t he there to defend himself when Attorney Busser, the Defendant’s Counsel shredded his arguments to pieces as she pointed out that he had incorrectly referenced case citations whereby he misinterpreted fundamental laws of principle? Not only had he embarrassed me, and himself, but he also made a mockery of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg, a very prestigious law firm one of the best in this nation, which is what, led me to Dear Lawyer in the first place. If Dear Lawyer failed to show up because he was embarrassed, that’s too bad because he was my lawyer, and as my lawyer it wasn’t about him; it was about me!

 

Judge Hildreth, at some point, you were assigned to my case, but Dear Lawyer filed a Declaration Under CCP 170.6. What is it? According to the document, under oath, Dear Lawyer swore,“… Hon. Martin Hildreth…is prejudiced against the interest of the party so that Plaintiff cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the said Judge.” What does that mean?  I am sure you are a nice man Judge Hildreth. I really wish that you were my Judge because you if you were I would have probably had a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

 

As Superior Court Judges, if there’s anything you can do on my behalf, such as write a letter of nomination, or petition Chief Trial Counsel Drexel, the State Bar Court of California, and the California State Supreme Court for these matters to be heard by a Judge or State Legislator at a congressional hearing, I would appreciate that.

 

I have so many more questions to ask you, but I know you are busy and I don’t want to waste any more of your time. I just want to thank you for giving me this meaningful opportunity to be heard for the very first time.

 

Most kindly,

 

 

 

Justice I. Diva

 

 

 

Cc:       The Honorable, Chief Trial Counsel Drexel, California State Bar

            The Honorable, Governor Schwarzenegger

            The Honorable, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer

            The Honorable, U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein

            The Honorable, U.S. Senator, Russ Feingold

            American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California

            American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation

            Gloria Allred

                       

 

0 Message(s).

There are no comments to this entry.

Post New Comment

This Blog owner requires you to have a Bravenet Blog account in order to post to this entry. If you have a Blog account, enter your username and password below.
No Smilies More Smilies »