Like Monopoly’s Bank Error in Your Favor Collect $200. A Error in a Judicial Proceeding is Always in your favor!

and if they harmed your civil rights it is a tortable offense as well meaning Civil lawsuit against the agency and/or the individual civil servant goverment employee

read below:

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.

you can download it directly from the goverment here https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/article_vi_current.pdf

A Brief History of the California Constitution

THE California State Constitution is one of the oldest state constitutions still in use today; it’s 130 year history defined by revision, amendment and reform. The constitution’s long life, coupled with numerous partial-reform efforts, has resulted in what is today the world’s third longest constitution. With 512 amendments, the Constitution of California is eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution and has been criticized as “a perfect example of what a constitution ought not to be”1 and derided for being “more about legal technicalities than principles; an embarrassment for an otherwise cutting-edge state”.2

Statehood
IN 1848 the United States acquired California from Mexico under the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo. When a gold discovery at Sutter’s Mill the following year sparked the famous California Gold Rush, the U.S. Congress acted swiftly to grant California statehood. Lacking an effective territorial administration for its rapidly growing population, California’s leaders were pressed to draft a workable constitution. With the backing of Brigadier General Bennett Riley, California’s military governor, 48 delegates convened a Constitutional Convention in Monterey. After final ratification, the delegates submitted the constitution to Congress and on Sunday, September 9, 1850, California was admitted to the Union as the 31st State.

Heavily based on other state constitutions, the 1848 California Constitution proved inadequate to meet the long-term needs of the flourishing new state.3 Political leaders tried to amend the document via constitutional convention and the amendment process, however, during the 30 years which followed statehood, all three constitutional convention ballot proposals failed to win voter support and, of the many constitutional amendments proposed, only three became law. Finally, in 1877 the state legislature again submitted the question of convening a Constitutional Convention to the voters, this time it passed.

THE Constitutional Convention of 1878-79 produced California’s second constitution. Although technically surviving into the modern era, the document has done so weighted down with over 500 amendments and having been put through a 12 year revision process from 1966 to 1974. Although state constitutional conventions have been commonplace throughout U.S. history, the circumstances surrounding the 1878 California Convention resulted in features which would distinguish California’s constitution from other states. Convened amidst economic upheaval, the 1878 convention had an unusually strong focus on social and economic reform. As a result, whereas most constitutions limit themselves to detailing the broad legal principles on which future laws are to be made, the 1878 constitution instead addressed many subjects normally considered statutory in other states.4

In the decades after 1879, between its focus on statutory measures and legislative amendment, the California Constitution began to swell. California’s 1911 adoption of direct democracy through the ballot initiative and referendum gave citizens and interest groups the power to amend the constitution through individual initiatives. By 1930, the California constitution had grown to over 65,000 words (by comparison, the Constitution of the United States has about 4,500 words).5 The increasingly unwieldy nature of the document led to wholesale revision efforts, and on separate occasions in 1898, 1914, 1928, and 1929 the legislature put the question of a constitutional convention to the voters, where each time the measure was defeated. Finally, in 1935, voters approved convening a Constitutional Convention. However, in the midst of coping with the Great Depression, a convention was never convened.

Reform and Failure
FOLLOWING WWII, constitutional conventions surged in popularity as citizens sought to modernize obsolete and outdated state constitutions. Since 1945, Constitutional Conventions have been held in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Rhode Island.

Meanwhile in California, in 1947 the state legislature authorized a Joint Interim Committee to draft a new constitution. They were to be assisted by an Advisory Committee which counted among its members two ex-governors, constitutional experts, and representatives from a variety of major political organizations and interest groups.6 With such an illustrious and knowledgeable group, real constitutional reform seemed assured. However, interest groups were able to limit the work of the committee to simply eliminating obsolete language.7 As it became clear the committee had no teeth, public interest faded. Although most of the Joint Interim Committee’s final recommendations were approved by both the legislature and the voters, the recommendations amounted to little more than reducing the constitution’s length by about 14,000 unnecessary words. Even with the cuts, by the late 1950’s the California constitution had grown to over 80,000 words with 350 amendments, making it the second most longest in the country.

approved) measures to empower the legislature to propose substantial constitutional revisions in addition to individual amendments.  The legislature responded by appointing a new special body responsible solely for constitutional reform: the Constitution Revision Commission.

Over the course of almost a decade, the Constitution Revision Commission of 1964 to 1971 brought about some of the most substantial reforms of California’s constitution since the convention of 1878.  The commission’s members included lawyers, educators, businesspeople, labor leaders, civic leaders, and others, along with a dedicated staff.8 Proposition 1-A, a key amendment element of the commission’s work, authorized major refurbishments of California’s system of governance. Voters accepted many other amendments drafted by the commission as well, addressing various constitutional improvements and simplifications.  However, when it came to several particularly significant and controversial topics, such as budget reform and the amendment process, the commission found itself deadlocked between competing interest groups and was consequently unable to make significant recommendations. By the end of the process the Constitution Revision Commission, much like the Joint Interim Committee before it, had accomplished little more than reducing the length of the state’s constitution.

During the 1990’s Governor Pete Wilson appointed the second Constitutional Revision Commission.  Convened at a time of economic recession, the bipartisan group  had a specific mandate: examine the most controversial aspects of the constitution reform and suggest reforms.  Pointing out that the state possessed more than 7,000 units of government and over 32 million residents, yet was governed by a constitution written when the population was closer to 800,000, the commission argued that major substantive constitutional changes were needed.  In 1996 the commission released a list of constitutional recommendations aimed at improving accountability and responsiveness of government, eliminating barriers to efficiency and flexibility, and assuring that the state kept its fiscal house in order by maintaining a balanced budget.  However, by the time the commission issued its final report California’s economy had recovered, the pressure to immediately act faded, and the commission’s work was ultimately neglected.

“The People’s Way”
CALIFORNIA’S financial system had become so fragile and so complicated that  few expected it was capable of weathering a sudden crisis, such as deep and prolonged recession. The twin arrivals of the housing collapse and the banking crisis of 2008-2009, and the recession which has been left in its wake, has proved more than enough to bring California to the brink.
The scope of the failure has been spectacular. In April of 2008, even before the banking crisis was in full swing, the Governor announced a once-unimaginable budget deficit of $20.8 billion for fiscal year 2008-2009, which took Sacramento a record 80 days past the budget deadline to reconcile. However, after the budget’s eventual passage, Sacramento was immediately forced to grapple with the $24 billion projected 2009-2010 deficit, which immediately ballooned to $26 billion on midnight July 1st, on what has become the inevitable moment every year when the budget becomes past-due.

The collapse has reaped disastrous consequences on the state. At 11..6%, California’s unemployment rate is among the nation’s highest. Following California’s issuance of IOU’s to creditors to pay its bills, California’s bond rating was lowered to just above “junk” status. California’s public schools, once the nations best, long ago fell towards the bottom and are about to become even more crowded and even less well-equipped.

A May 2009 article appearing in The Economist magazine described California’s need for a new constitution as “both necessary and likely” and went on to mention the state’s thousands of overlapping government districts and marvel: it’s a “surprise anything works at all”.9 Today, calls for fundamental reform of the constitution have been revived amidst record deficits, record budget delays, and the state government’s record-low job approval rating. The system has proven incapable of reforming itself, and citizens have begun to explore ways to reform the system from the outside. When Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was asked by the LA Times to comment on the push to call a Constitutional Convention, he called the effort “the only hope that I have”.10

Political dysfunction at the state level is not a new phenomenon. On numerous occasions throughout US history citizens of particular states have decided, when faced with such problems, to take the government back into their own hands.  During the 1963 Michigan Constitutional Convention, Wayne State University produced what has since become a classic black and white documentary about American democracy. At the closing moments of “Michigan Can Lead the Way”, the narrator editorialized:
“There had been fears the convention would be too conservative; fears that it would be too liberal; fears that it would be racked by politics…Pro-labor or pro-farmer or pro-business…Favoring the present, trapped in the past, lost in the future. The convention had been all of these, it was not an assemblage of angels. It was a convention of men and women. Taking the best it could agree on for our time and for our people…This was the process. Sometimes calm, sometimes not so calm. Either way, it was the people’s way. It was the way of a free democracy.”

——————-

1 E. Dotson Wilson and Brian S. Ebbert. California’s Legislature (Sacramento: California   State Legislature, Office of the Chief Clerk of the Assembly, 1998), 16.
2 Lascher, Edward. “It’s too easy to amend California’s Constitution.” Editorial. Los Angeles Times 4 Feb. 2009. 15 July 2009 <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hodson4-2009feb04,0,983208.story>.
3 Lee, Eugene C. “The Revision of California’s Constitution”. California Policy Seminar Brief, Vol. 3, No. 3. (April) 1991): 1.
4 Lee, Eugene C. “The Revision of California’s Constitution,” California Policy Seminar Brief, Vol. 3, No. 3     (April 1991): p. 1.
5 Lee, Eugene C. p. 2.
6 Lee, Eugene C. p. 3.
7 Hyink, Bernard L. “California Revises its Constitution”. The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3 (September 1969): p. 640.
8 Lee, Eugene C. “The Revision of California’s Constitution,” California Policy Seminar Brief, Vol. 3, No. 3     (April 1991): p. 4.
9 “The Ungovernable State”. The Economist, May 14th 2009. http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13649050
10 Goldmacher, Shane. “Schwarzenegger threatens to shut down state government.” Los Angeles Times, June 11, 2009. Accessed July 20, 2009. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/11/local/me-arnold-budget11

source

learn more about TORT here:

What is a Tort?

Section 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises

Bidna v. Rosen (1993) – Family Law Tort – Civil Malicious Prosecution

WRITS and WRIT Types in the United States

Recoverable Damages Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights

9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant in Individual Capacity —Elements and Burden of Proof

When The Prosecution Drops Charges

Thompson v. Clark – Malicious Prosecution claim under § 42 U.S.C. 1983 for malicious prosecution

Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest?

What is Abuse of Process? When the Government Fails Us

Prosecutorial Investigations

Malicious Prosecution Actions Arising Out Of Family Law Proceedings: Proceed Carefully 

Prosecutor’s Obligation to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence

Police BodyCam Footage Release – California

Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense

Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves

Lawyers’ Obligation of Candor to Opposing Parties and Third Parties

Seal & Destroy a Criminal Record

Oath and Obligation’s of Attorney – California Lawyers

Epic SCOTUS Decisions

Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Process

What Is Considered Obstruction of Justice in California?

Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence

Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California

Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense

Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties

Penal Code 664 PC – “Attempted Crimes” in California

Penal Code 32 PC – Accessory After the Fact

Penal Code 31 PC – Aiding and Abetting Laws

What is Abuse of Process? When the Government Fails Us

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest?

Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises

The Use and Abuse of Power by Prosecutors (Justice for All)

DUE PROCESS READS>>>>>>

Due Process vs Substantive Due Process learn more HERE

Understanding Due Process  – This clause caused over 200 overturns in just DNA alone Click Here

Mathews v. Eldridge – Due Process – 5th & 14th Amendment Mathews Test – 3 Part Test– Amdt5.4.5.4.2 Mathews Test

“Unfriending” Evidence – 5th Amendment

At the Intersection of Technology and Law

 Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$

Section 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

 Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit

How to File a complaint of Police Misconduct? (Tort Claim Forms here as well)

Deprivation of Rights – Under Color of the Law

What is Sua Sponte and How is it Used in a California Court? 

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors
and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case 

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right

How to Recover “Punitive Damages” in a California Personal Injury Case

Pro Se Forms and Forms Information(Tort Claim Forms here as well)

What is Tort?

Tort Claims Form File Government Claim for Eligible Compensation

Complete and submit the Government Claim Form, including the required $25 filing fee or Fee Waiver Request, and supporting documents, to the GCP.

See Information Guides and Resources below for more information.

Tort Claims – Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death

Federal –  Federal SF-95 Tort Claim Form Tort Claim online here or download it here or here from us

California – California Tort Claims Act – California Tort Claim Form Here or here from us

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner Complaint) and also UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PDF

Taken from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Forms source

WRITS and WRIT Types in the United States

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW 

Do Grandparents Have Visitation Rights? If there is an Established Relationship then Yes

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

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

Distinguishing Request for Custody from Request for Visitation

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate? – Reason for Joinder

Joinder In Family Law Cases – CRC Rule 5.24

GrandParents Rights To Visit
Family Law Packet OC Resource Center
Family Law Packet SB Resource Center

Motion to vacate an adverse judgment

Mandatory Joinder vs Permissive Joinder – Compulsory vs Dismissive Joinder

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?

Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848

Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099

Zauseta v. Zauseta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1242

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

Ian J. v. Peter M

Can I Use Text Messages in My California Divorce?

Two-Steps And Voila: How To Authenticate Text Messages

How Your Texts Can Be Used As Evidence?

California Supreme Court Rules:
Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines
Subject to Open Records Requests

case law: City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government  Employees

Public Records Practices After the San Jose Decision

The Decision Briefing Merits After the San Jose Decision

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

Rules of Admissibility – Evidence Admissibility

Confrontation Clause – Sixth Amendment

Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule – Confronting Evidence

Prosecutor’s Obligation to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence

Successful Brady/Napue Cases – Suppression of Evidence

Cases Remanded or Hearing Granted Based on Brady/Napue Claims

Unsuccessful But Instructive Brady/Napue Cases

ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution – fiduciary duty

Police BodyCam Footage Release

Electronic Audio Recording Request of OC Court Hearings

david diamond attorney reviews

DAVID DIAMOND HAS BEEN SUED BY HIS CLIENTS BEFORE, AND IT WAS NOT ME AND NOT RELATED TO ME. HE HAS A TRACK RECORD OF PISSING OFF HIS CLIENTS. HE WILL ALSO BE SUED BY 3 MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY. IF YOU WANT TO SEE HIS TRACK RECORD FROM REVIEWS OVER THE LAST 2 DECADES CLICK HERE

HE WILL LIE IN COURT ABOUT YOU ONCE HE HAS TURNED ON YOU. HE WILL THREATEN YOU AGAINST THE BAR RULES AS WELL

Attorney David Diamond – Our Opinion, He’s a lazy lying attorney with no scruples

Honest Opinionated Review of David Diamond Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Reviewdavid diamond attorney reviews

Now this man failed to complete his contract. He was never in a communication style with his client that moved the case forward. He had vacations and a new murder case that suddenly took precedence over the case this reader had paid Attorney David Diamond for.  He failed to keep everyone on the same page within the loop.  The case had a certain level of complexity that required attention to details, something Mr. David Diamond did not show to the case.  This case that Lawyer David Dimaond from Los Angeles took on had 3 Private Investigating agencies, 5 investigators, a bodycam footage from a lying cop who’s bodycam has the video footage of the mother  commiting contempt with the wanted fugitive sex offender right in the cops camera with the child that a judge says cannot be around the child. hence NO WANTED SEX OFFENDERS AROUND DAVID DIAMONDS CHILD. this was the case of contempt he had failed in every aspect to handle. There were conflicts of interest he never addressed taking on 2 clients from the same household. This man is not the person we would hire having experienced this, Would NEVER CHOOSE DAVID DIAMOND FOR MY ATTORNEY EVER AGAIN.

David Diamond Lawyer misleads the tribunal directly! isn’t that perjury? not sure. He told the judge he used USPS Mailing service to the wrong home and the home owner… she mails it back to the lying lawyer!

David Diamond, IN OUR OPINION IS A STRAIGHT UP unaccountable person, he does not keep his word.  David Diamond is a Los Angeles Criminal Attorney who has turned his own client he has known for over 10 years! This is a true dishonor and disservice to the legal community in our opinion.

we would never give David Diamond any business. the people he screwed he knew over 20 years. just imagine!

I know personally after reading the email with the proof one of our readers sent in……. we began our investigation to review the law offices David owns in Los Angeles. Attorney David D. Diamond has received an extensive amount of bad reviews over the course of his online life which is well over a decade.  Although no one can guarentee the validity of any review one can use logic.  An opinion based on the acculation of bad reveiws that are well hidden would show a preponderance of similar bahaviors. I personally don’t mind a bad review here and there but if there is a pattern I should account for that as well.  Money is hard to make for most, use you head make wise decisions hire this guy if you want to, its all up to you! 

If over the course of over a decade a horse is seen with stripes… maybe its a Zebra.  

Attorney David Diamond Review

Attorney David Diamond Reviewed and observed over the years has lead to a slew of findings. Our review and review of David Diamond the lawyer who has a history…. one of our readers experienced his behavior and our opinion is that he is malicious and has deviant like behavior. honesty is not his best policy from observing how our reader was treated and reviews serveral of David Diamonds reviews over the last decade. Over the last decade David D. Diamond has aquired a similar patter of behavior with a vast amount of reviewers over an extended period of time which in our opinion is a pattern of behavior that we would wish to avoid,  so we wont be hiring him any time soon!

Attorney David Diamond Review – We have reviewed David’s Behavior

Attorney David Diamond Review – found many other reviews of the behavior pattern that in our opinion he seeems to exhibit more often than a client would like to face.

David Diamond – Stooge status in our opinion 

David D Diamond # 210258 – David Diamond Attorney Lawyer

The Attorney-Client Privilege in California – Evidence Code § 954

READ REVIEWS ON DAVID DIAMOND, HIS YELP REVIEWS BELOW OR CLICK HERE TO SEE THEM LIVE ON YELP

Attorney David Diamond Reviews

REVIEWS WE FOUND OF THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID DIAMOND, ALTHOUGH NO ONE CAN EVER BE SURE. A PATTERN OVER THE YEARS SHOULD BE NOTED WELL, AND THAT IS OUR OPINION! 

SEE FOR YOURSELF, YEARS OF DISHONEST BAD LAWYER SERVICE, YEARS! HE HAS EARNED HIS REPUTATION THAT THOSE 1 STARS BRING UP.

i would stay far away from https://www.losangeles-criminalattorney.com/

and his other site http://ladefender.com/

https://www.yelp.com/biz/law-offices-of-david-d-diamond-burbank-3?rr=1#reviews

AND HERE ARE THE ONES YELP HIDES FROM YOU IF YOU PAY YELP, YELP IS PAY FOR PLAY SO THEY ALLOW YOU TO HIDE IF YOU PAY! SO SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO LOOK DEEPER INTO YELP AND FIND THE ARE MARKED reviews for Law Offices of David D. Diamond that are not currently recommended. 

https://www.yelp.com/not_recommended_reviews/law-offices-of-david-d-diamond-burbank-3

Attorney David Diamond Review

IF YOU OWN A BUSINESS AND PAY YELP THEY WILL HELP YOU HIDE BAD REVIEWS TO MAKE YOUSELF SHINE WHEN YOU DO NOT DESERVE IT HERE ARE THOSE HIDDEN REVIEWS AS WELL AS YOU CAN SEE THEY ARE QUITE SIMILAR TO ALL THE OTHER BAD REVIEWS OVER THE YEARS THAT MR DIAMOND HAS AQUIRED.

 

https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/90017-ca-david-diamond-206647/reviews.html?rating=1

Attorney David Diamond Review

https://www.lawyers.com/los-angeles/california/david-douglas-diamond-2306409-a/

OUR OPINION: WITH OVER 12 YEARs of reviews and still he has not learned. repeated posts over the years showing very similar behavior is a sign they are not only 100% true but also that he is in denial almost everytime when he confronts said clients. he literally is in his own world! our advice is to FIND A REAL 5.0 STAR ATTORNEY

MAIN POINTS OF DAVID DIAMOND LA ATTORNEY BAD REVIEWS ARE:

1. POOR COMMUNICATION

2. NOT SHOWING UP OR BEING UN-PREPARED FOR CASE

3. NOT KEEPING HIS WORD

4. NOT FIGHT FOR CLIENT

5. TURNING ON CLIENTS AFTER RELATIONSHIP FALLS OUT

6. KEEPING CLIENTS MONEY AFTER NOT COMPLETING HIS ASSIGNMENT

7. PUTS DOWN HIS CLIENTS AFTER BREACH OF CONTRACT

8. HISTORY OF BAILING ON HIS CLIENTS 

SERVING HIS CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST HIS CLIENT BELOW

DAVID DIAMOND LAWYER REVIEWS

Reveiw of the law offices of David Diamond attorney of law

David Diamond Reviews

Reviewing honestly our Opinion of David Diamond Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney

David Diamond Reviews

David Diamond Reviews

David Diamond Reviewc

David Diamond Reviews

Review of David Diamond Lawyer – opinion based on his theft of my money and no work makes him in my opinion nothin more than a lying thief!

Review of David Diamond Lawyer – opinion based on his theft of my money and no work makes him in my opinion nothin more than a lying thief!

A fiduciary duty is a legal responsibility to act in the best interest of another party. The term “fiduciary” comes from the Latin word for trust, and a person with a fiduciary duty has a legal obligation to maintain that trust. For example, lawyers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their clients.

Fiduciary duties include duties of care, loyalty, good faith, confidentiality, prudence, and disclosure. The person with a fiduciary duty is known as the fiduciary, and the person or persons they are responsible to are referred to as the principal or the beneficiary.

A fiduciary relationship existed where the fiduciary owed a duty to the principal. The fiduciary acted in a manner that contradicted, or breached, their expected duties. The principal suffered damages. The damages incurred were a direct result of the breach of fiduciary duty.

The fiduciary duty of an attorney in California is to act in their client’s best interests and keep all information provided confidential.

What Constitutes a Breach of Fiduciary Duty in California?

A breach of fiduciary duty can sometimes be difficult to prove. For a breach of duty to have occurred, the defendant (i.e. attorney, consultant, investment broker, trustee) must have a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff. When there is a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff and the defendant did not act in the best interests of their client, a breach of fiduciary duty exists. https://goodshepherdmedia.net/what-is-a-fiduciary-duty-breach-of-fiduciary-duty/

The Lawyer’s Fiduciary Duties: “The 4 C’s”:

•  1. Communicate
  RLGL  §20 A Lawyer’s Duty to Inform and Consult with a Client
  • (1) A lawyer must keep a client reasonably informed about the matter and must consult with a client to a reasonable extent concerning decisions to be made by the lawyer…
  • (2) A lawyer must promptly comply with a client’s reasonable requests for information.
  • (3) A lawyer must notify a client of decisions to be made by the client…and must explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decision regarding the representation.
    RPC 1.4 Communication
    • (b) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
    • (c) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decision regarding the representattion.

 Rizzo v. Haines, 555 A.2d 58 (Pa. 1989). (duty to disclose settlement offers to client)
FDIC v. Clark, 978 F.2d 1541 (10th Cir.1992) (duty to inform board of directors of a corporate officer’s fraud).

• 2. Conflict Avoidance (duty of loyalty)
  Maritrans v. Pepper Hamilton & Scheetz, 529 Pa. 241, 602 A.2d 1277 (1992)
  Matter of Silverman, 113 NJ 198 (1988) (doing business with clients)
• 3. Confidentiality
  Profit Sharing Trust v. Lampf Lipkind, 267 NJ Super 174 (Law Div. 1993)
• 4. Competence
  Starron v. Weinstein, 305 N.J.Super. 263, 701 A.2d 1325 

A fiduciary has several duties, The main liabilities for fiduciary of duties include:

• Duty of Care: The duty to take all due diligence in making decisions, providing counsel, or taking action.
• Duty to sensible care
• Duty of Total Loyalty: The duty of loyalty prevents a fiduciary from representing someone with a conflict in interests.
• Duty of Good Faith: Fiduciaries have a duty to obey the law in their dealings on the client’s behalf.
• Duty of Confidentiality: The fiduciary cannot disclose any information without the client’s consent.
• Duty of Prudence: Similar to the duty of care, the duty of prudence requires the fiduciary to take all due care in identifying risks and weighing options before taking action.
• Duty to Disclose: Fiduciaries must not withhold information that would affect the well-being of the client.

§49. Breach of Fiduciary Duty–Generally

In addition to the other possible bases of civil liability described in §§48 [professional negligence] 55[breach of contract and equitable relief] and 56 [liability to a non-client], a lawyer is civilly liable to a client if the lawyer breaches a fiduciary duty to the client set forth in §16(3) and if that failure is a legal cause of injury with the meaning of §53, unless the lawyer has a defense within the meaning of §54. 

§16  Lawyer’s Duties to a Client–Generally:
To the extent consistent with the lawyer’s other legal duties and subject to other provisions of this Restatement, a lawyer must, in matters within the scope of the representation:
(1) proceed in a manner reasonably calculated to advance a client’s lawful objectives, as defined by the client after consultation;
(2) act with reasonable competence and diligence;
(3) comply with obligations concerning the client’s confidences and property, avoid impermissible conflicting interests, deal honestly with the client, and not employ advantages arising from the client-lawyer relationship in a manner adverse to the client;
(4) fulfill valid contractual obligations to the client.

Review of David Diamond Lawyer – opinion based on his theft of my money and no work makes him in my opinion nothin more than a lying thief!

The California Rules of Professional Conduct also include:

• Rule 1.1 Competence: (a) A lawyer shall not intentionally, recklessly, with gross negligence, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.  For purposes of this rule, “competence” in any legal service shall mean to apply the (i) learning and skill, and (ii) mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonably* necessary for the performance of such service.
• Rule 1.3 Diligence : A lawyer shall not intentionally, repeatedly, recklessly or with gross negligence fail to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client.

• Rule 1.4 Communication with Clients (a) A lawyer shall: 
  (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which disclosure or the client’s informed consent* is required by these rules or the State Bar Act;
  (2) reasonably* consult with the client about the means by which to accomplish the client’s objectives in the representation;
  (3) keep the client reasonably* informed about significant developments relating to the representation, including promptly complying with reasonable* requests for information and copies of significant documents when necessary to keep the client so informed; (b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably* necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

• Rule 3-500: A member shall keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the employment or representation.
• Rule 4.1: A lawyer shall not make a false statement of fact or law to a third person.
• Rule 3-110: A member shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.
• Rule 3-700: A member shall not withdraw from employment in a proceeding before a tribunal without its permission.
• 6068(c). The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.1 & 4.4, also impose a duty to the legal system which requires both that the attorney bring only meritorious claims and that they not use inappropriate means in the representation of their client that embarrass, burden, delay or violate legal rights. Barbara A. v. John G., 145 Cal.App.3d 369 (1983) (citing Herbert v. Lankershim, 9 Cal.2d 409, 483 (1937); Bacon v. Soule, 19 Cal.App. 428, 434 (1912)

Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
(a) A lawyer shall not, without informed written consent* from each client and compliance with paragraph (d), represent a client if the representation is directly adverse to another client in the same or a separate matter.
(b) A lawyer shall not, without informed written consent* from each affected client and compliance with paragraph (d), represent a client if there is a significant risk the lawyer’s representation of the client will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to or relationships with another client, a former client or a third person,* or by the lawyer’s own interests.
(c) Even when a significant risk requiring a lawyer to comply with paragraph (b) is not present, a lawyer shall not represent a client without written* disclosure of the relationship to the client and compliance with paragraph (d) where:
(1) the lawyer has, or knows* that another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm* has, a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with or responsibility to a party or witness in the same matter; or
(2) the lawyer knows* or reasonably should know* that another party’s lawyer is a spouse, parent, child, or sibling of the lawyer, lives with the lawyer, is a client of the lawyer or another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm,* or has an intimate personal relationship with the lawyer.
(d) Representation is permitted under this rule only if the lawyer complies with paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), and: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes* that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

Rule 1.8.2 Use of Current Client’s Information A lawyer shall not use a client’s information protected by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1) to the disadvantage of the client unless the client gives informed consent,*

The warrants I have are not know the public. He was told about them in confidentiality and then went on the internet and told the world and its attached directly to my name which is liable defamation as these warrants are not even legitimate warrants, they were malicious persecution and abuse of process that he was told about to help me fight.

Rule 1.8.6 Compensation from One Other than Client
A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (a) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment or with the lawyer-client relationship; (b) information is protected as required by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1) and rule 1.6

Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
 (a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person* in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s* interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed written consent.*

(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly* represent a person* in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm* with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client

(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person;* and

(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e) and rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter; unless the former client gives informed written consent.*

(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm* has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(1) use information protected by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e) and rule 1.6 acquired by virtue of the representation of the former client to the disadvantage of the former client except as these rules or the State Bar Act would permit with respect to a current client, or when the information has become generally known;* or

(2) reveal information protected by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e) and rule 1.6 acquired by virtue of the representation of the former client except as these rules or the State Bar Act permit with respect to a current client.

After termination of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer owes two duties to a former client. The lawyer may not (i) do anything that will injuriously affect the former client in any matter in which the lawyer represented the former client, or (ii) at any time use against the former client knowledge or information acquired by virtue of the previous relationship. (See Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811 [124 Cal.Rptr.3d 256]; Wutchumna Water Co. v. Bailey (1932) 216 Cal. 564 [15 P.2d 505].) For example, (i) a lawyer could not properly seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on behalf of the former client and (ii) a lawyer who has prosecuted an accused person* could not represent the accused in a subsequent civil action against the government concerning the same matter. (See also Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6131; 18 U.S.C. § 207(a).) These duties exist to preserve a client’s trust in the lawyer and to encourage the client’s candor in communications with the lawyer.

In California, breach of fiduciary duty penalties includes civil remedies, civil penalties, and criminal penalties. If a breach of fiduciary duties was done with oppression, fraud, or malice (proven by clear and convincing evidence under California Civil Code § 3294) then the court may award punitive damages. According to California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 343, the statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty is four years. And violates 15 U.S.C. 80a-35 – Breach of fiduciary duty and liabilities 29 U.S. Code § 1109 – Liability for breach of fiduciary duty. His responsibilities as well are §8477. Fiduciary responsibilities; liability and penalties.

 Salinas v. Cruz; The 2nd Court of Appeals of California Reverses Restraining Order Because Cross-Examination Was Barred

Review of David Diamond Lawyer – opinion based on his theft of my money and no work makes him in my opinion nothin more than a lying thief!

When he ran for judge he needed to persuade others he is not a deviant but as you can see in the reviews our opinion based on others experiences would leave you to believe that most people DO NOT NEED TO TELL PEOPLE THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE NOT TRYING TO DECEIVE OR DO ANYTHING INAPPORPRIATE!

read about that article below

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2020/judielec011420.htm

Review of David Diamond Lawyer – opinion based on his theft of my money and no work makes him in my opinion nothin more than a lying thief!

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.

The Bane Act is a California law that allows you to sue for damages if someone uses violence, threats, intimidation or coercion to interfere with your state or federal civil rights. You can potentially recover

1. compensatory and punitive damages,
2. attorney’s fees, and
3. civil penalties.

The civil rights to which the Act applies include your right to:

• Vote,
• Bear arms,
• Speak, or
• Associate with certain people.

A Bane Act lawsuit can be filed against anyone who interfered with your right through the use of:

• Violence,
• Threats of violence,
• Intimidation, or
• Coercion.

A Bane civil action typically demands that the defendant pay:

• Compensation for the interference,
• Punitive damages,
• Attorneys’ fees, and
• A civil penalty of $25,000.

1. What are lawsuits under the Bane Act in California?

Bane Act lawsuits are civil claims filed under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act.¹ You can file a Bane Act lawsuit against someone who interfered with your civil rights. That interference can take the form of such constitutional violations as:

• Threats of violence,
• Actual violence,
• Intimidation, or
• Coercion.

Anyone can file a Bane claim, even if they are not part of a protected class. Common plaintiffs in Bane cases are hate crime victims harmed due to their sexual orientation, national origin, or race. It does not matter whether the perpetrators were private citizens or law enforcement using excessive force. It does not matter whether the plaintiff was the sole victim or part of a group of persons who were harmed.

Because a Bane lawsuit is a civil cause of action, rather than a criminal one, victims can recover monetary damages in the form of compensation.

Bane Act lawsuits can be filed against anyone, including individual people, corporations,² and even the government.³

2. What are considered civil rights?

Under the Bane Act in the state of California, your civil rights are any legal right you have under the:

• U.S. Constitution,
• California state constitution,
• Laws of the United States (federal law), or
• State law.⁴

These rights include, for example:

• Your right to be free from police searches or seizures that are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,⁵
• Your right to vote under the California Voting Rights Act, and
• Your right to file a civil rights complaint in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3. What do I have to prove in a Bane Act lawsuit?

To succeed in a Bane lawsuit under California law, you have to prove either that:

• The defendant made threats of violence against you or your property that made you reasonably believe that they would be carried out if you exercised your civil right, or
• The defendant acted violently against you or your property to prevent you from exercising your rights or to retaliate against you for doing so.

In addition to one of these options, you also have to show that:

• You were harmed, and
• The defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing your harm.⁶

3.1. Attempted violations are sufficient

It is not necessary to show that the defendant actually kept you from exercising your rights. An attempt to keep you from exercising your rights can lead to liability under the Bane Act.⁷

3.2. No discriminatory intent necessary

You also do not need to show that the defendant acted with discriminatory intent.⁸ It is enough for the defendant to try to keep you from exercising your rights. This makes Bane lawsuits different from Ralph Act lawsuits.

3.3. Mere speech cannot lead to liability

However, without more, speech alone cannot lead to liability under the Bane laws.⁹ The speech has to be a threat of violence that creates a reasonable fear of imminent harm.

4. What damages are available in a Bane Act lawsuit in California?

Bane Act lawsuits can recover monetary damages that compensate you for your actual damages, including:

• Medical bills from any violence or other medical conditions,
• Mental anguish and emotional distress,
• Lost wages during your recovery,
• Lost earning capacity,
• Pain and suffering, and
• Loss of consortium for your family during the ordeal.

The Bane Act requires this compensation to be at least $4,000. It also allows the jury to triple this amount of compensation.¹⁰

Successful Bane claims can also recover:

• Attorney’s fees,
• Punitive damages (also called exemplary damages),
• A civil penalty of $25,000, and
• Injunctive relief/equitable relief,
• Restraining orders against the defendant.

5. Is the Bane Act only in California?

Yes, the Bane Act is a California state law. But it protects people whose state or federal rights are interfered with by threats, intimidation, or coercion. And it is common for victims to sue for Bane Act violations along with § 1983 violations in federal court rather than state court.¹¹

6. Can police officers assert a qualified immunity defense in a Bane Act lawsuit?

Probably not. Law enforcement used to be able to raise a qualified immunity defense in Bane Act cases where they violated a person’s constitutional rights while investigating a crime.

The defense worked as a complete bar to liability.

However, recent California law says police officers can no longer raise this defense in cases brought under the Bane Act. The new law also states that prison guards and their employers cannot use a qualified immunity defense in cases where they injure prisoners or fail to provide them with medical care.¹²

7. What is the statute of limitations for the Bane Act?

The Bane Act statute does not spell out a specific statute of limitations. So, depending on the case, courts apply one of the following time limits to sue:

“For liability arising out of common law neglect or personal injury, a two-year statute of limitations applies, but for statutory actions, a three-year limitation applies.”¹³

Furthermore, these statutes of limitations can be prolonged by six months according to the Tort Claim Act.¹⁴ source

Legal References:

What is California Civil Code § 52.1 which is also known as the Bane Act?

The Bane Act And Beyond

California’s civil rights statutes, especially The Tom Bane Act, are an untapped resource that extends far beyond the usual police misconduct cases

California’s civil rights statutes represent an untapped resource for plaintiffs whose rights have been interfered with as a result of the intentional tortious conduct of public and private actors in a variety of contexts and circumstances. In addition to broad statutory language that can encompass a multitude of tortious conduct, including conduct of employers and others who have “aided” another in the deprivation of one’s statutory and common-law rights, these statutes contain significant remedies such as punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Exploring just three of California’s civil rights statutes provides a glimpse of what is possible and will hopefully spark an interest in pursuing these virtuous claims.

California Civil Code § 52.1 (The Bane Act)

Civil Code Section 52.1, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, authorizes suit against anyone who by threats, intimidation, or coercion interferes with the exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the state or federal Constitutions or laws without regard to whether the victim is a member of a protected class. (Civ. Code § 52.1.) To obtain relief under Section 52.1, a plaintiff does not need to allege that a defendant acted with discriminatory animus or intent; liability only requires interference or attempted interference with the plaintiff’s legal rights by the requisite threats, intimidation, or coercion. (Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 841-843 (“Venegas I”).)

“The essence of a Bane Act claim is that the defendant, by the specified improper means (i.e., ‘threats, intimidation or coercion’), tried to or did prevent the plaintiff from doing something he or she had the right to do under the law or to force the plaintiff to do something that he or she was not required to do under the law.” (Austin B. v. Escondido Union Sch. Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 883.)

While Bane Act violations most often accompany section 1983 and Monell claims in federal court, the reach of the Bane Act extends far beyond police misconduct cases. Indeed, while one might assume that a constitutional right must be at issue, the statute does not require interference with only those rights secured by the constitution. Rather, as described in Section 52.1, a plaintiff’s legal rights include “rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state.” (Civ. Code, § 52.1, subd. (a) (emphasis added).) Although in Venegas I, the California Supreme Court repeatedly referred to “laws of this state” as “statutory rights” (see Venegas I, supra, 32 Cal.4th at pp. 841-43), in construing the exact same term in the context of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the Supreme Court found that the phrase “laws of this state” includes both statutes and common law (Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 75-76). Thus, the reach appears to extend beyond the interference of constitutional and statutory rights and includes rights secured by common law.

Furthermore, and as explicitly stated in Section 52.1, liability does not require actual interference with a plaintiff’s legal rights. Rather, even an attempted interference is enough to give rise to a Bane Act claim. (Civ. Code, § 52.1, subds. (a), (b); Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal. 2005) 397 F. Supp. 2d 1208.)

The Act provides for liability for interference or attempted interference with an individual’s rights “by threats, intimidation, or coercion.” While the terms “threat,” “intimidation” or “coercion” are not defined in Section 52.1, courts have applied their ordinary and common meaning. (See, e.g., Zamora v. Sacramento Rendering Co. (E.D. Cal. 2007) No. Civ. S-05-00789 DFL KJM, 2007 WL 137239, *8, n. 6 [defining intimidation according to its ordinary meaning as “to make timid or fearful”]; McCue v. S. Fork Union Elem. Sch. (E.D. Cal. 2011) 766 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1011 [explaining “[f]or the purposes of the Bane Act, the term ‘threat’ means ‘an “expression of an intent to inflict evil, injury, or damage to another.”]; see also Kahn and Links, Cal. Civ. Practice: Civil Rights Litigation (2016) § 3:19.) But with the lack of attention litigants have devoted to the Bane Act, there is little to no authority discussing the meaning of these terms.

A federal district court case, Cole v. Doe 1 thru 2 Officers of City of Emeryville Police Dept., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1102-04 (N.D. Cal. 2005), addressed the meaning and found that even in the absence of any excessive force, “[u]se of law enforcement authority to effectuate a stop, detention (including use of handcuffs), and search can constitute” a threat, intimidation or coercion. (Cole, 387 F.Supp.2d at p. 1103.) In reaching this conclusion, Cole relied on the “persuasive reasoning” of the unpublished California court of appeal decision in Whitworth v. City of Sonoma, 2004 WL 2106606 (Cal.App.1st Dist. 2004), which held that the conduct of a police officer physically barring a person from entering a meeting is a form of “coercion” under the Bane Act, even if there was no actual use of force. (See also O’Toole v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 488, 502 [assuming without deciding that police officers’ conduct in demanding that protesters leave a college campus and then arresting one of them after he refused to discontinue his activities constituted “coercion” for purposes of Civ. Code, § 52.1].)

By its terms, Section 52.1 does not require a showing of violence or threat of violence. (Cole, at p. 1103; but see Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”) 3066 [incorporating an element of violence within the prescription for threats, coercion or intimidation for a Bane Act violation].) The only express exception, and it is, arguably, the exception that proves the rule, is that liability may not be based on “speech alone” unless “the speech itself threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons; and the person or group of persons against whom the threat is directed reasonably fears that, because of the speech, violence will be committed against them or their property and that the person threatening violence had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.” (Civ. Code, § 52.1, subd. (j).) Thus, the only place where section 52.1 specifically requires the threat of violence is where the threats, intimidation or coercion are being accomplished by speech alone.

The test for whether a defendant violates Section 52.1 for interference with a legal right by threats, intimidation or coercion is whether a reasonable person, standing in the shoes of the plaintiff, would have been intimidated, threatened or coerced by the actions of the defendants. (Richardson v. City of Antioch (2010) 722 F.Supp.2d 1133, 1147; Winarto v. Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc. (9th Cir. 2001) 274 F.3d 1276, 1289-90.)

A defense gains traction

One issue that is gaining some traction among those defending Bane Act violation claims is the notion that the showing of “threats, intimidation or coercion” must be separate and independent from the wrongful conduct constituting the rights violation. Defendants often argue that in order to maintain a claim under the Bane Act, the threatening, intimidating or coercive conduct at issue must be separate from the interference with constitutional or statutory rights. But such an interpretation conflicts with plain language of the statute and is premised upon a flawed understanding of Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 947.

Shoyoye, a wrongful-detention case where the plaintiff had been over-detained by approximately 16 days as a result of unintentional clerical error, merely held that a Bane Act claim cannot be premised upon a constitutional violation – occurring as a result of “mere negligence rather than a volitional act intended to interfere with the exercise or enjoyment of the constitutional right” – where the element of coercion is implicit in the constitutional violation. (Id. at pp. 957-959.) As noted by the Court, Section 52.1 was not intended to redress harms “brought about by human error rather than intentional conduct.” (Id. at p. 959.)

Neither Shoyoye, nor the statutory language of Section 52.1, requires that the conduct amounting to a threat, intimidation or coercion cannot also be the conduct alleged to be a violation of civil rights.

With respect to who a Bane Act claim may be brought against, Section 52.1 allows claims to be brought against “a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of state law ….” (Civ. Code § 51, subd. (a).) The scope of this is as broad as it seems. The word “person” includes the panoply of non-biological legal persons, including corporations and public agencies. (See Civ. Code, § 14 [defining “person” to include a corporation]; see, e.g., Jones v. Kmart Corp. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 329 [reversing liability against a corporation under the Bane Act on unrelated substantive grounds, but never disputing the liability of a corporation under the Bane Act]; Gatto v. County of Sonoma (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 744 [affirming Bane Act liability against a county].) Further, “[g]overnment entities have respondeat superior liability for their employees’ Bane Act violations.” (Gant v. County of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal. 2011) 765 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1249-50.)

Relief includes attorney’s fees

For violation of the Bane Act, Section 52.1, subdivision (b) states that any individual whose rights have been interfered with by threats, intimidation or coercion, “may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured.” (Civ. Code § 52.1.) Section 52 permits such relief as actual damages, statutory damages (including civil penalties), exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. (Civ. Code § 52.)

In light of these significant remedies, and the broad scope of liability, it is surprising that more Bane Act violations are not pursued. In his concurrence opinion in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, Justice Baxter highlighted the breadth of Bane Act liability as the statute is currently worded. (Venegas, 32 Cal.4th at pp. 844-45.) According to Justice Baxter, the Legislature “might have inadvertently transformed section 52.1 from its originally intended purpose as a weapon…to combat the rising incidence of hate crimes, to a generally applicable catchall provision that will encourage claimants to seek section 52.1’s sweeping remedies…in commonplace tort actions to which those special statutory remedies were never intended to apply.” (Ibid.) He further noted that “it should not prove difficult to frame many, if not most, asserted violations [of federal and state rights]…as incorporating a threatening, coercive, or intimidating verbal or written component.” (Id. at pp. 850-51.) Notably, in the more than 10 years that have passed since Venegas, the Legislature has taken no action to narrow the scope of the Bane Act’s language.

California Civil Code section 51.7 (The Ralph Act)

Beyond the Bane Act is Civil Code section 51.7, “The Ralph Act,” which prohibits all violence or intimidation by threat of violence committed against any person or property because of a person’s sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, or position in a labor dispute or because of the perception that a person has one or more of these characteristics. The Ralph Act does not limit its protections to persons with these explicitly enumerated characteristics, but rather notes that the “identification … of particular bases of discrimination is illustrative.” (Civ. Code, § 51.7, subd. (a).) The civil right protected by the Ralph Act is the right to be free from violence because of a person’s protected characteristic such as race, sex or sexual orientation.

Similar to the Bane Act, the Ralph Act does not define any of the three operative words “violence,” “intimidation” or “threat.” Words alone can violate the Ralph Act. (See Long v. Valentino (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1296-98.) The appropriate standard to determine whether the threatened violence was intimidating is “‘would a reasonable person, standing in the shoes of the plaintiff, have been intimidated by the actions of the defendant and have perceived a threat of violence?’” (Winarto v. Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc. (9th Cir. 2001) 274 F.3d 1276, 1289-90 [because the victim of the threat in that case was a woman, the Ninth Circuit stated that its test would specifically focus on the standard of “the reasonable woman.”].)

Unlike a claim under the Unruh Act, a Ralph Act claim can be made by an employee against an employer. (Stamps v. Superior Court (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1441.) Recognizing that neither the language nor the history of the Ralph Act bars claims arising in an employment setting, the Court observed “[s]adly, hate does not end when an employee walks through the door of his or her place of employment. The staggering impact of cases of workplace violence based on race, religion and other classifications described in these statutes is unfortunately known to us too well.” (Id. at p. 1457.)

The remedies for a Ralph Act civil claim are set forth in Civ. Code § 52, subd. (b), which provides for actual damages, punitive damages, civil penalty, attorney’s fees as well as injunctive relief.

Civil Code § 51.9 (sexual harassment in defined relationships)

Another civil rights statute that is often overlooked is Civil Code section 51.9, which was enacted in 1994, and establishes a cause of action for sexual harassment in certain defined relationships where “[t]here is an inability by the plaintiff to easily terminate the relationship,” including, but not limited to, relationships between a plaintiff and a physician, landlord or teacher. (See Civ. Code, § 51.9, subd. (a), subsection (1), (a),(d) & (e).)

The cause of action requires: (1) the existence of a business, service, or professional relationship; (2) the defendant has made sexual advances, solicitations, sexual requests, demands for sexual compliance by the plaintiff, or engaged in other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature or of a hostile nature based on gender, that were unwelcome and pervasive or severe; (3) there is an inability by the plaintiff to easily terminate the relationship; and (4) “[t]he plaintiff has suffered or will suffer economic loss or disadvantage or personal injury, including, but not limited to, emotional distress or the violation of a statutory or constitutional right, as a result of the conduct described in paragraph (2).” (Civ. Code, § 51.9.)

While a claim for violation of Section 51.9 may often accompany a claim for violation of the FEHA (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), as explicitly provided in the statute itself, it is no way limited to sexual harassment in the workplace. Such a claim may be appropriate where a teacher sexually abuses a student, or a landlord regularly harasses a tenant on the basis of gender. The availability of such statutory liability may expand theories otherwise unavailable to such victims.

Concluding thoughts

One further observation that may entice use of these civil rights statutes is the provision in Civil Code section 52, providing that: “Whoever denies the right provided by Section 51.7 or 51.9, or aids, incites, or conspires in that denial, is liable …” for actual damages as well as exemplary damages, a civil penalty and attorney’s fees as may be determined by the court.

Pursuant to this provision, where a police officer is found liable for denying a plaintiff the right to be free from violence or the threat of violence based on a protected characteristic under Section 51.7, and, where there are facts supporting the police department’s knowledge of similar such violations (similar to Monell liability), the police department may be equally liable to the victim for its conduct in aiding, inciting or conspiring in that denial under section 52(b). Or, considering a claim for violation of section 51.9 involving a teacher and a student, should the facts reveal that the school knew that the teacher had engaged in inappropriate conduct with other students and yet took no action to investigate or otherwise protect the plaintiff, the school could very well be found to have aided the teacher in sexually harassing the student and thus equally as liable under section 52(b). Indeed, the very presence of subsection (b) in section 52 suggests that the Legislature contemplated the role of third parties in assisting in the violation of these statutory claims.

In short, California’s civil rights statutes, and specifically Civil Code sections 52.1, Civil Code 51.7 and Civil Code 51.9, are worth reviewing, and hopefully pursuing, in the fight to protect citizens rights. 

source

California Civil Code Section 52.1

Interference by threat, intimidation or coercion with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights