Paul Toepel Criminal Lawyer (LIAR)

This man has no relationship with the truth

HAVE YOU HAD TO DEAL WITH SCUM? READ THIS Quotes for Those Strong and of Good Nature 

Paul Toepel Criminal Lying Attorney –

Soon to be Disbarred and Sued

How to Sue and Take Care of A Malicious Lawyer – Use His Actions, Use His Words AGAINST HIM

“He put a gun to his sons head, I think!”

These are only some of the lying words out of this mans mouth that he has said about me

He comfortably defames a mans fatherhood in open court with straight up lies! Tells lies about me while also lying about the whereabouts of a wanted fugitive sex offender in my sons mothers house (against a Judges orders)! He has told the judge himself Nigel is never is with Michael and has moved out!
yet check out the photo proof Click here to see all the proof of Toepel’s Doing

Paul Toepel has no conscience! He definitely manipulates the truth!

are you all slow or just easily conned by this lying defamatory man Mr. Paul Toepel Jr.
HINT! the rabbit hole will not conceal the lies he has told, it reveals them!

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTH CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE

Numbers 32:23 KJV

But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out.

Court said Stolen Valor Act violated First Amendment

In United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ____ (2012),  LIAR SHIT BAG ATTORNEY PAUL TOEPEL DID THIS TO ME when he said to the judge  that I “PUT A GUN TO MY SONS HEAD”

The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth.  A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us.  All human constitutions which contradict his cannot protect us.  All human constitutions which contradict his (God’s) laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey.  1772, Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109.

US Public Law 97-280 as “the word of God and all men are admonished to learn and apply it” so I demand anyone and everyone to notice God’s Laws

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, -‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: first, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit: second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.”  Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892).

There should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoilation of property. (Policepower, DueProcess) Barber v. Connolly,113 U.S. 27, 31; Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.

• – Article 1 of the Bill of Rights – guarantees freedom of religion-
  Constitution for the United States of America ARTICLE IV, sect. 1, Full faith and credit among states. (Self-executing constitutional provisions) Section 1.  Full faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other state.

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, -‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: first, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit: second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.”  Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892).

There should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoilation of property. (Policepower, DueProcess) Barber v. Connolly,113 U.S. 27, 31; Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTH CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE

Lawyers, upon being licensed and admitted to the practice of law are under oath and have a duty to be truthful with the Court in all pleadings, appearances and interactions in their role as a lawyer with the Court.

List of Bar Rule Violations, Laws and Business & Professional Codes Lawyers’ often commit and break.

Here is the list of their attorney’s doings.

1. Rule 1.1 Competence – A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
2. Rule 1.2.1 Advising or Assisting the Violation of Law
3. a) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal, fraudulent, or a violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal. HELPING CLIENTS LIE IS THAT!
4. Rule 1.3: Diligence – A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence (careful and persistent work or effort.) and promptness in representing a client.
5. Rule 2.122. Conduct Towards Other Attorneys, the Court and Participants –
   (c) Filing of motions Motions should be filed sparingly, in good faith and when the issue(s) cannot be otherwise resolved. An attorney should not engage in conduct which forces opposing counsel to file a motion and then not oppose the motion, or provide information called for in the motion only after the motion is filed.
6. Rule 2.123 Candor to the Court and Opposing Counsel –
7. Accuracy of written and oral statements Attorneys should not knowingly misstate, misrepresent or distort any fact or legal authority to the Court or to the opposing counsel, and shall not mislead by inaction or silence. Written materials and oral argument to the Court should accurately state current law and fairly represent the party’s position without unfairly attacking the opposing counsel or opposing party.
8. 1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions

• A lawyer shall not:

1. bring or continue an action, conduct a defense, assert a position in litigation, or take an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or
2. present a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of the existing law.
3. Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal
   (a) A lawyer shall not:

(1) knowingly* make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal* or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal* by the lawyer;
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows* to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence, and the lawyer comes to know* of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable

1. A lawyer who represents a client in a proceeding before a tribunal* and who knows* that a person* intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent* conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable* remedial measures to the extent permitted by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e) and rule 1.6.
2. The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding.

8. Rule 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
9. suppress any evidence that the lawyer or the lawyer’s client has a legal obligation to reveal or to produce;
10. falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;
11. Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in statement to others

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person and also requires a lawyer to disclose a material fact to avoid assisting a client in a criminal or fraudulent act, subject to the lawyer’s duties under rule 1.6 and Business and Professions Code section 6068(e).

10. California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200(B) prohibits lawyers from misleading a judge, judicial officer, or jury by artifice or false statement . Rule 5-200 also requires lawyers to use means that are consistent with truth.
11. Business and Professions Code § 6106 – Dishonesty, whether or not committed while acting as an attorney, is considered an act of moral turpitude and is prohibited.
12. California Code, Business and Professions Code – BPC § 6068

It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:

1. To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.
2. To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.
3. To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a person charged with a public offense.
4. To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
5. To advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he or she is charged.
6. Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest.
7. Business and Professions Code – BPC § 6067 – Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to the best of his knowledge and ability.
8. Rule 8.3 Required Reporting – which requires a lawyer (including judges) to report certain misconduct by another lawyer. See RULE 8.3 REPORTING SCENARIOS
   SCENARIO 6: CREDIBLE EVIDENCE]
   https://calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Rule-8-3-Scenarios.pdf
   On June 2, 2023, the court received a request from the State Bar of California to approve a version of rule 8.3 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. The request was granted.
9. Rule 8.4 misconduct
   It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
   (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; PERJURY IS THAT, FILING FALSHOODS IN CHECKBOX ANSWER FORMS IS THAT!
   (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,* deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation; PERJURY IS THAT, FILING FALSHOODS IN CHECKBOX ANSWER FORMS IS THAT!
   (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; PERJURY IS THAT, FILING FALSHOODS IN CHECKBOX ANSWER FORMS IS THAT!
   (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official, or to achieve results by means that violate these rules, the State Bar Act, or other law;
10. Rule 8.4.1 Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation

(4) “retaliate” means to take adverse action against a person* because that person* has (i) opposed, or (ii) pursued, participated in, or assisted any action alleging, any conduct prohibited by paragraphs (a)(1) or (b)(1) of this rule.

Both the Business and Professions Code and the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit attorneys from making misrepresentations to a judicial officer.

Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (d), provides that attorneys shall never “seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.”

Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200(B), which adds jurors to this prohibition, states that an attorney “Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.”

These standards reflect the policy that “Honesty in dealing with the courts is of paramount importance, and misleading a judge is, regardless of motives, a serious offense.” (DiSabatino v. State Bar (1980) 27 Cal.3d 159, 162-163, quoting Paine v. State Bar (1939) 14 Cal.2d 150, 154); see also Daily v. Superior Court (1935) 4 Cal.App.2d 127, 132, quoting Furlong v. White (1921) 51 Cal.App. 265, 271
that attorneys are “officers of the court, and while it is their duty to protect and defend the interests of their clients, the obligation is equally imperative to aid the court in avoiding error and in determining the cause in accordance with justice and the established rules of practice.”)

Deceit may be committed by an outright affirmative falsehood or by concealment of a material fact. (Daily v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.App.2d 127, 131 [“Deceit…may consist in suppression of that which it is one’s duty to declare…”]; see also Franklin v. State Bar (1986) 41 Cal.3d 700, 709 [“…concealment of a material fact ‘misleads the judge as effectively as a false statement…’”], quoting, in part, Grove v. State Bar, supra, 63 Cal.2d 312, 315 [“No distinction can therefore be drawn among concealment, half-truth, and false statement of fact.”].)

It is not necessary that the court be deceived by the misrepresentation (Davis v. State Bar (1983) 33 Cal.3d 231, 240 [“…it is sufficient that the attorney knowingly presents a false statement which tends to mislead the court”] or that the misrepresentation caused no harm. (Scofield v. State Bar (1965) 62 Cal.2d 624. 628 [“The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact, to deceive another, or to induce him to enter into a contract, constitutes actual fraud.”]) because “it is the endeavor to secure an advantage by means of falsity which is denounced.” (Pickering v. State Bar (1944) 24 Cal.2d 141, 145.)

It is also not a defense that the attorney believed it was necessary to lie to protect her client. (Bryan v. Bank of America (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 185, 193 [“Nor can we accept the proposition that (the attorney’s) duty to his client relieved him of the responsibility to tell the court the truth, particularly where the representation was made under penalty of perjury.”].)

The courts have already addressed the Misrepresenting of grounds for purpose of continuance or delay. (Vaughn v. Municipal Court (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 348, 354

This current case #23AVUD01538 began 10/27/2023 yet if you read the signed Declaration of mailing affidavit under penalty of perjury they signed it 10/03/2023, as this was the same dated paper used in the previous filing.  In that filing, Joezen Callos #307712 committed the same exact type of misleading answer prior, when I retained FAST EVICTION as my attorney, they mishandled my case so that case was terminated.  The particular date they illegitimately used was a from the Declaration of mailing paperwork filed on THAT previous case#23AVUD01220 by the defendants and the same attorney of  BASTA, Inc,. / Joezen Callos #307712 was  on thatOLD case# 23AVUD01220 which began in October. The tenant’s illegal sublet answered that OLD case# 23AVUD01220

 IN : Kenworthy v. State of California (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 378, 397-398. Offers of proof are improper are not allowed! See also Offers to stipulate are improper: Augustus v. Shaffer (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 160, 167. See also Moving to amend a complaint is improper: Sanguinetti v. Moore Dry Dock Co. (1951) 36 Cal.2d 812, 819.
So I also ask the courts to reject their answer as it was not filed in a timely manner withing the restraints set forth by the courts of the great state of California, which is 5 days.  The defendants failed to answer in the required time.

This failure triggers Rule 2.85. Requirements for Service of Process And

Rule 2.87. Adoption of Mandatory Electronic Filing and Service; Exceptions.

The defendants still did not answer until BASTA AMENEDED THE FIRST ILLEGITIMATE ANSWER UNTIMELY FILED WITH A FALSE Declaration of mailing. The law required a legitimate answer in response with a legal Declaration of mailing to my unlawful detainer filing by the date of November 3, 2023. THEY FAILED TO DO SO WITH LEGITIMACEY AND WITHOUT PERJURY!

A “misleading is not distinguishable from a false statement, according to the State Bar, and this principle dates back to at least 1929. All these forms of deception are considered fraud upon the court, or fraud on the court. “False statement of fact,” “explicit false statement” or “affirmative misrepresentation” are the legal, technical terms for what the general public refers to as a lie. The failure to disclose adverse facts and authority is unlawful, unethical, and considered sanctionable misconduct, according to the State Bar.

The actions of Joezen Callos #307712 fall under California Business and Professions Code – BPC § 6106  “The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension.”

OFFERING OR PREPARING FALSE EVIDENCE

• California Penal Code Section 132, offering false evidence, is legally described as follows:
  Anyone who upon any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation authorized law, offers in evidence, as genuine, any book, paper, document, record, or other instrument in writing, knowing it’s forged or fraudulently altered, is guilty of felony offense.
• California Penal Code Section 134, preparing false evidence, is legally described as follows:
  Anyone guilty of preparing a false paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter with intent to produce or allow it to be produced for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose as genuine upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law, is guilty of felony offense.
• California Penal Code Section 118 – Perjury described as follows:
  Signing the court documents under the penalty of perjury would be this
• California Penal Code Section 135 destroying or concealing evidence described as follows:
  not showing the courts the major breaches like the big dog and holding back clear agreement breaches is deceptive to the court and very disrespectful to the courts and myself. please see EXHIBIT 1A , please see EXHIBIT 12 John Blunt Junior Rental Application – even puts on our application he has NO DOGS, that is why we considered him, he specifically told us he has not pets! We do not take tenants with pets per our agreement, please see EXHIBIT 1c
• California Penal Code Section 141 – Planting Evidence described as follows:
  would be when they take signed MAILING OF DECLARATION from another case and turn it in on this case.

California Penal Code Section 470 – Forgery described as follows: that would be where you look at the signatures of John Blunt Junior and clearly see 2 different signatures claiming to be John Blunt Junior

Hawk v. Superior Court – The power of the court to punish summarily for a direct contempt is contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1211 and Rule 2.60. Sanctions. My Civil rights are being harmed by the actions of the defendants’ and their attorney Joezen Callos #307712.

• California’s Civil Code section 1710  identifies four kinds of fraud:

1. intentional misrepresentation;
2. concealment;
3. false promise; and
4. negligent misrepresentation.

Intentional Fraud/ Deceit occurs when the defrauder uses deceit or false important facts to convince the victim to rely on the false facts.  Then the victim reasonably relied on and was harmed by the deceit.

Promissory Fraud occurs when the defrauded makes a promise that is important to the transaction that he or she never intends to, nor never performs, in order to induce the victim to rely victim rely on the promise.  Then the victim must reasonably rely on and be harmed by the false promise. “An action for promissory fraud may lie where a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a contract.” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 973-974; Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 18, 30.)

Concealment Fraud occurs when there is a fiduciary or other relationship between the parties where there is a duty of full disclosure. The concealing person, with an intention to deceive, does not disclose important facts that the concealing person knows but the victim does not and could not know. Further, the victim reasonably relied on and was harmed by the concealment.

Constructive Fraud or Negligent Misrepresentation occurs when the perpetrator misrepresents to the victim that an important false fact is true. However, the defrauder may have honestly believed that the false representation is true.  Yet, the defrauder had no reasonable grounds for believing the representation was true when he or she made it; and he or she intends that victim rely on the representation.  The victim must reasonably rely on and be harmed by the false representation.

California Constitution
Article VI – Judicial
Section 13.

Universal Citation: CA Constitution art VI § 13

SEC. 13.

No judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted, in any cause, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

https://www.thenalfa.org/blog/defense-prevailing-party-in-dvpa-case-dropped-by-plaintiff/

“Motion Hearing re attorney fees is denied with prejudice.”

erroneous prevailing party determination resulted in a miscarriage of justice….[B]ecause the respondent on petition for a domestic violence restraining order, the trial court had discretion to deny his request for prevailing party attorney fees under [Family Code] section 6344, subdivision (a).”

Art, VI, §13 of the state Constitution, reversal is called for only where an error has resulted “in a miscarriage of justice” which, she declared, did not occur.

Download a good PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

Review of the Law Offices of Paul D Toepel Attorney – The Dirty Truth

Evidence Locker Below – Access Denied

Click Photo if to Access only if you know you have access, all other clicks will be considered trespassing by US Government