1

2 3 4
""""

Jose Castaneda,

P. O. Box 947, Pasadena, CA 91102

SUPERIOR

COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

BY eVanon, AND RY WhisteCOURT, Nreward dual,

BY 10.TITLE LITIGANT18,241 One CASE(S) YS WITH EVIDENCE&OF More Word .?) & THREAT ("Say 242

= :c 0 < 0ABUSE OF DISCRECTION 6.

PLEADING BY FOR COURT PROCEEDINGS ~ Vs. OF EVIDENCE FOR JUDGE EVIDENCE, GRANTING BY "FORCE" '--'.~ OFPREDICTIVE HICKOK, AN A PURCHASE OR r'0 ABUSE DUE1. ABUSEVERDICT ENGINEERED PROCESS :BC 12. REFUSAL TO ACCEPT PLAINTIFF~ 5 017992 & GC & THE TAMPERING .~. IIm I CASE ALLOWING PLANTING m ILEGALL Y 039743 JURISDICTION :::;s;: VEXATIOUS AMENDMENT 11. CONSPIRACY TO MANIPULATE AND EVIDENCE COMPLAINTOFTHE8th, andBY Defendants. I VERIFIED NOOF DISCRETION EDITING PROCESSRELATED CASES) OF 8. SUPPRESSION TO VIOLATE OF CONSPIRACY OR JUSTICE 14TH I (SEE VENUE ALLOWING OATHTAMPERING DUE BY ATTORNEY(S), BY 4. VIOLATION OF 1St, 6th, OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICE BY 7. AND PURCHASED ORDER 9. 3. ABUSE OF THE

s.

.-

27
28

This action is brought in Pursuant to the Eighth, Fourteenth, Sixth, and First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and to 42 U.S.c. 1983. This Court has Jurisdiction under 28
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE PHILLIP HICKOK AND THE CORRUPTION IN COURT

Page 1

1
2

U.S.c. 1331, 1343(a), and since the complaint, claims and charges of a "Judicial Lynching" based on a Judicial bribe has occurred in the set of Courtrooms of Commissioner Anthony B. Drewry, Judge Joseph F. DeVanon, Judge Rita "Sunny" Miller, and NOW Judge Phillip H. Hickok, who freaked out and overturned an Appellate Court Judgment of May 15,2011 by Justices Kumar, Sanjay T., Armstrong, Orville A., Mosk, Richard M. (Concur) in case B 223549, Castaneda v. Mercado. Can a Superior Court Judge overturned and Supersede an Appellate Court ruling or

3
4

5
6

decision? This was done to my case and now sets new case law! Is this illegal act legal?
7 8 9 10

IT

GENERAL CLAIMS. COMPLAINTS. AND CHARGES

This is a civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $897,000.00

1.

exclusive of interest, punitive damages Blower the "Judicial Retaliation",

& pain,

and suffering.

Because I choose to Whistle-

11
12

"Judicial Lynching" that has occurred goes above and beyond

just judicial lies, but criminal actions being perpetrated in a court of law!

13

2.
14

At all times herein mentioned, JOSE CASTANEDA,

"Plaintiff," was and now is a

resident of the city of Pasadena of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and the natural
15 16 17
18 19 20

son of Decedent FELICITAS

SALAZAR CASTANEDA,

herein as "decedent".

DECEDENT

was widowed at the time of Trial Jesus Castaneda v. Jose Castaneda, herein as "PASADENA TRIAL", and died leaving in issue, the missing millions from the estate, per court statement and testimony of Attorneys Sonia Mercado and R. Sam R. Paz: "Apparently Luis Had Left Millions

In His Estate From An Annuity From a Previous Accident That Left Him Mentally Disabled".

21
22

Be advised, according to Attorneys Mercado and Paz, I, the Plaintiff had "Depleated" all of the Funds of the Estate and left my own mother, Felicitas Castaneda, "Homeless"!!! How can

23
24

Mrs. Castaneda be homeless, "IF", and only IF, Attorney Mercado and Paz disburse well over a Quarter of a Million Dollars from a $400,000.00 settlement with the County of Los Angeles for

25 26

the Death of my brother Luis! IF Mrs. Castaneda was homeless, it was apparently due to the proven fraud and theft of the settlement monies by the court and the Attorneys involved! For proof, how can

27

Ihide Millions

of dollars that was missing from the Estate? How? And why

didn't the court order the money returned if Millions were missing? Why didn't the court order a 28 District Attorney referral, if Millions of dollars were missing?
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE PHILLIP HICKOK AND THE CORRUPTION IN COURT

Page 2

1 II 3.
2

At all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, were and now are residents

II of the County of Los Angeles, in the State of California. 4. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant as an individual PHILLIP H. HICKOK

3
4

(hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY") was and now is duly Sworn by Oath of Affirmation to Defend and Protect the Constitution of The United States of America, and ALL of its citizens in the United States, but yet breaks the law in his own court by overturning an Appeals Court Decision made illegally based on a Judicial Bribe in his lower court for a "Kick-Back"! 5. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants HICKOK were, among other things, engaged

5
6 7

8
9 10

in representing, operating, maintaining, managing and "selling his decisions for a judicial bribe" at The Los Angeles Superior Court (herein after referred to as "SUPERIOR COURT") in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and in rendering illegal, contrary to the evidence presented, was a crime committed in his court, selling decisions based on a judicial bribe,

11
12

13

overturning decisions made by other courts; illegally "Acting" as a Appeals Court Judge!
14

All of the acts claimed, complained, and charges herein by Plaintiff against Defendants were
15 16

done and performed by said Defendants by and through their duly authorized agents, servants, and clerks, or law clerks or employees, "officers of the Court Sworn to uphold the Law", and each of them, all of whom were at all times mentioned herein, acting within the course, purpose and scope of said County Agency, service and/or employment and whose illegally, and "intentional" with corrupt and criminal conduct, was "Aided and Abetted" by all other defendantsl and their agents knowingly, willingly and wantonly.

17
18 19 20 21 22 23

For Proof of the All of the Criminal Acts that were committed in the Courts, the Chronological Order as follows: A) On January 13,2009, in case BS 118244, Commissioner Drewry allows, condones, and

24
25 26

permits Attorney Ivan Shomer to represent me, the PLAINTIFF in the case without an MC-50 court form which sets Case Law. This is Illegal and against the Law, and violates my rights for the court to hire an Attorney for me, without my permission, and to find me Guilty!

27 28

Can the court that was supposed to be neutral, hire an Attorney for me, without my permission to find me guilty? Because isn't it a Conflict of Interest for the court to hire an Attorney for me???
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE PHILLIP HICKOK AND THE CORRUPTION IN COURT Page

1
2

The Comrn. Antony B. Drewry then violated his Oath of Office by breaking the Law in the "Brown Act" by holding "several private conferences" in Judges Chambers for a bribe to suppress my constitutional civil rights to Due Process. For proof, there was no MC-50 AND he even violated the "Brown Act" in his court for his cut of the money! This is in violation of Government Code section 54950 and 54962. This turns this civil case into a criminal case where the "Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine" must be applied by law, and my rights must be respected. But instead, they were violated to engineer a Predictive and Purchased decision from the court!

3
4

5
6 7 8

***(Plaintiff motions this court of record to take proper Judicial Notice of Reporter's Transcript
9

of January 13.2009, February 4,2009 and April 13, 2009 in Department 76, Case BS 118244,
10

Presided by Commissioner Anthonv B. Drewry, who breaks the law and grants TRO's by knowingly, and willingly participating in a Judicial Conspiracy, "In Concert", to allow judicial fraud in the Los Angeles Superior Court)***

11
12 13 14 15 16

B)

On February 22, 2010, Judge DeVanon interferes, blocks and prevents my attorney

Emahn Counts to represent me for a Judicial Bribe by claiming that "HE NEVER CONTACTED THE COURT", Judge Devanon was refereeing to Attorney Shomer! This has been proven to be a lie and shows and Clearly displays the early stages of the Judicial Conspiracy that was in place, as already agreed; as for proof ... ALL attorneys, specifically Lisa Marie MacCarley "aided and abetted" Attorney Mercado and Paz, as they knew that the original attorney in this case was Jack K. Conway, who had an independent legal duty to me, the Plaintiff, but sabotaged my case working for the opposing party for more money. For proof, Conway filed to the Court the MC-50

17
18 19 20 21

form, and so did Attorney Counts, but Judge DeVanon order it to be removed for judicial bribe to
22

set me up to lose my case. For more proof, interview Manager of the Courthouse Charles
23 24 25 26

"Chuck" Love, who confirms and admits that the MC-50 was filed to the court! Who is lying the manager of the Courthouse or the JUDGE, because they both cannot be right! Which truth is the lie? Chuck Love who had the MC-50, or Judge DeVanon who said there was "NOT" an MC-50? ***(Plaintiff motions this court of record to take Judicial Notice of Reporter' s Transcript of February 22, 2010, in Department "S", that will be closin? for business soon due to judicial corruption, in Case GC 042105, Presided by disgraceful. dishonorable Judge Joseph Frank
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE PHILLIP HICKOK AND THE CORRUPTION IN COURT

27
28

Page 4

1
2
3 4

De Vanon. who breaks the law and "Applies" Solicitation. under 653(f). which is a misdemeanor and asks Plaintiff for monies hy stating: "LET ME GET SOME". then lying by stating:: "HE NEVER CONTACTED THE COURT". a proven lie by MC-50 court form on record and filed,

5
6 7

Los Angeles Superior Court)***

C)

On May 9,2010,

Judge Rita "Sunny" Miller was confronted with an "Engineered"

8
9

dilemma, question, problem, situation as the Judicial Stories told by Attorney Sonia Maria Mercado, a compulsive liar because she makes up all sorts of "Judicial Shit" as she talking, one knows she is lying because her side of the story conflicts with Attorney Conway version of what

10

happened. 11
12

The stories told by Jack K. Conway as to when Attorney Conway was retained or

hired was also a lie, then 2 stories that conflict each other proves that there is a lie and a conspiracy to commit theft. For proof Jack K. Conway sets me up for proof is because Conway cannot remember the lies to get out of his part to commit theft and steal my mother' money. The storytelling of the dilemma or the judicial question presented to Judge Miller begins by Attorney Mercado's ERRATA Declaration submitted prior to the Testimony of Jack K. Conway given on in the middle of a hearing,

13
14 15 16

May 8, 2010! (YOUR HONOR, who submits an "Errata Declaration" or even after a hearing and nothing gets corrected? WHO?)

17
18 19 20 21 22

Because Attorney Mercado and

Conway stories did "NOT" match to what had occurred or taken place, as Plaintiff Jose Castaneda had already "lost" his case by a planned "Default". I was being set up for failure and to lose my case on a judicial lie, bribe, and judicial non-sense? And now, a judicial conspiracy,

because the court allowed this illegal conduct of allowing my case to be in a "Default", when it was not in a Default per Chuck Love. Also, in another part of the case, the fact is, if both attorneys were testifying to the court, and given false information, and giving Judicial Lies to the

23

Court; why didn't the Court Presided by Judge Miller clarify, then pursue which attorney was
24 25
26

lying in her court? This was bizarre and ridiculous ! Your Honor, which set of lies, is the truths in a case were Jose Castaneda was fined or sanctioned almost a million dollars? Plaintiff wants to

know how much the judges cut was for allowing the sanction of a million dollars. And for
something that was never his fault, because he had nothing to do with the court that allows errors, lies, and the lies place in court as the truth\ \ \
Page
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE PHILLIP HICKOK AND THE CORRUPTION IN COURT

27 28

1
2

***(Plaintiff motions this court of record to take proper Judicial Notice of Reporter's Transcript of May 8, 2009. in Department 16, Case Be 402096. Presided by Rita Sunny Miller, who breaks the law by NOT pursuing Attorney Mercado or Conway that was lying to the court to win their case, and by knowingly. and willingly participating in a "Concerted" fraud in the Los Angeles Superior Court as Plaintiff is sanctioned $897,000.00 or almost a million)***

3
4

5
6 7

6.

At all times herein mentioned, defendants Dan Fallon, Court Clerk in Department "R",

8 9
10

and David Guillete, Clerk in Court Clerk in Department 16 have been named as DOE defendants, and DOES I and 2 respectively, and DOES 3 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were and now are employed as Clerks duly licensed and hired to practice their professions in the State of California, and were engaged in the practice of their asaid professions in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and were employees servants, and/or agents of the COUNTY. 7. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants Dan Fallon, David Guillete, Patricia Morejon,

11
12

13
14 15 16

Jerry Bernie, and DOES 3 through 100 inclusive, and each ofthem, were employees and/or agents of SUPERIOR COURT and were responsible, within the course and scope of their employment with SUPERIOR COURT, for assuring, through periodic review, instruction, and otherwise, the competence of any and all other co-workers such as clerks, deputies, secretaries,

17

legal secretaries, and all other employees that practiced their profession with SUPERIOR
18

COURT through their employment, policies, practices, and procedures.

19 20

8.

Plaintiff will amend his Complaint as properly Petitioned to Judge HICKOK months prior

21 22
23 24 25

to March 28,2012, but then illegally ignored because a bribe was paid to the court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1714.10 (c) , Defendant Attorney Jack K. Conway had an Independent Legal Duty To Plaintiff where the Reasonable Probability of prevailing, and a prima facie showing by the evidence in the proceedings and statements that included Attorney Sonia Maria Mercado, Lisa Marie MacCarley, Sam Paz, Jack K. Conway, James R. Felton, Ivan Shomer, Ivan Nigoghosian, Charles "Chuck" Love, Robert Berke, and Emahn Counts that there is

26

overwhelming potential for success.

27

28
Page E

VERIFIED

COMPLAINT

AGAINST JUDGE PHILLIP

HICKOK AND THE CORRUPTION

IN COURT

1 9.
2

At all times herein mentioned, defendants DOES 3 through 100 were and now are duly

appointed officers and/or employees or agents of SUPERIOR COURT. At all times herein mentioned, the Court Room Departments of the Halls of Justice was and now is a department of SUPERIOR COURT subject to oversight and supervision by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Antonovich, Molina, Yaroslavzki, Knabe, Ridley-Thomas, who for years have been informed of the "On-going Corruption" practiced at the Los Angeles Superior Court but refuse to get involved or take appropriate and necessary corrective action to stop the Corruption that goes against Public Policy based on a Bribe under Penal Code 67 & 68, which is a Felony and Federal Law Title 18,241 & 242. At the very least the Supervisors should have requested a "Formal

3
4

5
6

8
9

Investigation" to the appropriate law enforcement agency when these crimes of bribery,
10

conspiracy, and the destroying, tampering, and withhold evidence was allowed to engineer a Predictive verdict or Decision from the court based on a bribe! To prove that there is corruption the Supervisors NEVER refer this to any other agency, refer this to be investigated, or "Ever" corrected this illegal act for years as your Oath of Office requires. All parties had "knowledge", but turned away for a bribe, while never implementing any corrective action!

11
12

13
14 15 16

10.

At all times herein mentioned, each and every defendant herein was the agent of each and

17
18

every other defendant and had the legal duty to oversee and supervise the hiring, conduct, employment and discipline of each and every other defendant herein. But this was never done for promotional and financial gain.

19 20

11.

The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of

21
22

defendants, DOES 3 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of DOES 3 through 100 when the same have been ascertained.
1112.

23
24 25 26 27

In doing the acts, that turned criminal due to ill gotten gains and in failing and omitting to

act as hereafter described, defendants DOES 3 through 100 were as officers, agents and employees of defendant SUPERIOR COURT and within the course and scope of such employment. But this Employment had a "Higher-Duty", that should have stopped this illegal

28

I\

!!!V!!!E!!!R!!!I F!!!I!!!E D!!!!!!C!!!O!!!M!!!P!!!L!!!A!!!I N!!!T!!!A!!!!!!GA!!!I!!!N!!!S!!!T!!!}!!!!!!UD!!!G!!!E

!!!P!!!H!!!I L!!!L!!!I P!!!!!!H!!!I C!!!K!!!O!!!K!!!A!!!N!!!!!!!!!DT!!!H!!!E!!!C!!!O!!!R!!!R!!!U!!!P!!!T!!!I

O!!!N!!!!!!I N!!!!!!C O!!!U!!!R!!!T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!p!!!ag!!!!!!e

1 and criminal conduct to sabotage cases for gain, destroy or tamper with evidence, remove
2

evidence from files, refuse to stamp evidence, legal documents, or legal forms addressed to the court to engineer Predictive and Engineered purchased decisions from the court in the state of California. 13. In doing the acts, criminal acts, and breaking laws, rules, policies, and legal procedures

3
4

5
6 7
8

laid down by law, the participants are Principles, Accessories, and Accomplices of a crime committed in of all places ... in a court of law!!! And in failing and omitting to act as hereafter described, defendants and DOES 3 through 100 were acting with the implied and actual permission and consent of SUPERIOR COURT and all the Judges, Supervisors, and Agents. 14. On or about May, Plaintiff filed a claim for damages with the COUNTY pursuant to

9 10

11 II 12 II 13
14

Government Code Section 910, et seq., and it WILL be denied there after and this action was subsequently timely filed. In doing the acts and in failing and omitting to act as hereafter described, defendants DOES 3 through 100 were as officers, agents and employees of defendant SUPERIOR COURT and within the course and scope of such employment, along with criminal

15 16 17 18

acts against the People of California.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS TO SHOW THAT NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOBODY CAN MISUSE THE LEGAL PROCESS TO SILENCE AND OPPRESS THOSE WITH DIFFERENT OPINIONS WHEN ATTORNEYS ARE ALLOWED TO L
IN A COURT OF LA W FOR YEARS: 15. THE Plaintiff, JOSE CASTANEDA, OPPOSED THE Defendant(s) unlawful use

19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26

"Judicial Tactics" in numerous slanderous, libelous, and defamatory claims, statements, and "Branding Tactics and tricks" to win their case out of hate, discrimination, and prejudice instead ofthe truth, and the Evidence! These Judicial tricks and tactics which were engineered and designed to "Brand" a person's character to win cases is judicial criminal behavior; and at the same time "ATTACK" the character of Plaintiff Jose Castaneda by "PLANTING" FALSE EVIDENCE of being a "Vexatious Litigant" is uncalled for, criminal, and should not be tolerated in a court of law for a "stink in" Judicial Bribe to the courts of California!!! But, yet, it is allowed? These Prejudicial Statements and lies are made with "No Support", NO evidence, or

27 28

\ !!!V!!E!!RI!!F!!IE!!D!!C!!O!!M!!PL!!A!!I!!NT!!!!AG!!A!!I!!NS!!'!T!!'!)!!'!U!!'!DG!!'!E!!'!P!!'!H!!'!IL!!'!L!!'!Ip!!'!H!!'!I!!'!C!!'!KO!!'!K!!'!A!!'!N!!'!D!!'!T!!'!H!!'!E!!'!C!!'!O!!'!R!!'!R!!!!!!Up!!'!T!!!!!!I

O!!!!!!N!!!!!!!!!!!!IN!!!!!!C!!!!!!O!!'!U!!!!!!R!!'!T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'!p!!'!a!!!!!!g!!!!e

J'

1 justification of any kind is allowed to "Throw" cases based on Judicial Bribery! But yet, allowed
2 3
4

in a court of law? Of the false allegations and Evidence that are allowed to "force" a case to a Predictive or Purchased Verdict from the court, based on "Labeling" someone on a series of lies, with no foundation, evidence, or any "Freaken" proof! Just hire any Attorney to lie! Statements are made such as "He is out of Control" or "Millions were taken", with little or NO evidence is criminal and always allowed for a bribe to the courts in California, and it is so bad and out of control, it is happening to other people's cases too! I am Requesting, Moving this Court that is Presided by the Hon. Judge Holly E. to impose

5
6 7

sanctions against and on "ALL" Defendant's utilizing tactics of "Labeling", and judicial tactics
9

of judicial slander, because there was "no" evidence to support their fraudulent claims, designed
10

to win cases by rumor or lies based on a bribe to the court! Judicial tactics that are Created, Developed, and "Intended" to distract the court from the real issues of Perjury by Officers of the Court, this has become an "Art Form" of who can lie the best without getting caught, BECAUSE NO ONE HAS TO PROVE A THING! The Judicial Tactics of distorting the truth, along with the "Corruption" in Court, Selling of Decisions, Tampering with evidence to steer a case to a "Predictive or Purchased" verdict, the Obstruction of Justice, which is in violation of the Code of Civil Procedure, AND the Civil Rights violations, e.g. Free Speech rights of Plaintiff Jose Castaneda. The Idea and strategy, is to place a "Judicial Spin" to distract from the real issues and label the opposing party as crazy, vexatious litigant, or that "he's unhappy" with the rulings. Nothing is ever proven with "ANY" evidence, or even Confirmed, or even verified or certified as required by law. Just lie in court and paid the Judge at the Country Club or Golf Course! Prove me wrong! Take my Challenge? 1.# I stole millions per the court which is on record. I will reward you with a couple of million i

11
12 13

14
15 16 17 18

19
20 21 22

you find my money for me!

23

2. # I left my mother homeless as the Executor of her estate, when she has over a $100,000.00
24 25 26

dollars in cash in her own personal bank account! 3.# I was stalking the opposing Attorney, while I was at work! And to prove the Attorney was lying in court, when I was stalking her as stated in court, SHE NEVER CALLED THE POLICE? Does this make any sense? This is how you know Attorney get to lie in court, and with no proof!

27 28

I\!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IJ!!!!IJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!IJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
AGAINST JUDGE PHILLIP HICKOK AND THE CORRUPTION IN COURT

Page qj

1 16.
2

The Plaintiff, a Pro se litigant, in pursuit of what is defined in the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 8(t) as substantial justice, and is taking the necessary steps to make the Court aware of the following "Judicial Tactics" being applied and used to win cases through illegal means: The courts "MUST" provide pro se parties Wide Latitude when constructing their pleadings, papers, and their case because we are "NOT" Attorneys, but would like access to use the court as allowed by the Constitution of the United States. When interpreting pro se papers, the Court MUST use common sense to determine what relief the party desires. S.E.c. v. Elliott. 953
F.2d 1560.1582

3
4

5
6 7

(lfh Cir.1992). See also, United States v. Miller. 197 F.3rd 644.648 (3rd Cir.

1999) (Court has special obligation to construe pro se litigants' pleadings liberally); Poling v. K.
9

Hovnanian Entervrises.
10

99 F. Supp.2d 502.506-07

(D.N']. 2000)

11
12

If this is not done or allowed, or Lee Way is not given, or "ANY" Judicial Consideration is not allowed or granted by the court, or any assistance to allow the people to present their case(s) to the court, this Judicial Action violates the Peoples Rights to use our own courts, and goes against the Constitution of the United States, and is an act of Treason! This also violates Public Policy to use our own Government that supposes to work for the People! Not to commit crimes to design Purchased decisions based on Judicial Bribes, Prejudice, Discrimination, or hatred for Whistle Blowing!

13
14

15
16 17 18 19 20

17.

Plaintiff, without the benefit of counsel due to his economic status, employment status,

and of not having a "Full-Time" employment, but only has "Part Time Employment should NOT be Judicially Discriminated against because he is poor, not white, and is not an Attorney. Plaintiff submits this MOTION, in a belief that he will be able to use our courts as allowed by law, and for an order finding DEFENDANT in contempt of court for abusing the judicial process

21 22
23

in a manner "Shocking to the Senses!" The court abuses it's; Power, Office, and Authority in a manner that is criminal in nature due to bribes to the court, and also under Penal Code 258, Slander; and for an "Instant" award of court costs expenses and attorney's fees, upon the following grounds each and all for the following:

24
25 26 27 28

\\
'!!V!!!!t,!!!!R'!!!!\F!!!!m!!!!n!!!!C!!!!O!!!!M!!!!1l!!!!1!!!!t\!!!!m!!!!1!!!!A'!!!!G!!!!l\.!!!!m!!!!s!!!!:r!!!!\U!!!U!!!G!!!r.!!!P!!!H!!!1 L!!!L!!!lp!!!H!!!l!!!C!!!~!!!O K!!!!!!AN!!!U!!!!!!T!!!HE!!!!!!C O!!!R!!!R!!!U!!!P!!!T!!!l O!!!N!!!l!!!N!!!C!!!O!!!U R!!!T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!p!!!ag!!!e!!!l~~

1
2

Be advised that C. C. P. Section 391 - 391.7 vexatious litigant as;

(1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.

3
4

5
6 7 8 9 10

18.

Plaintiff requests this court to find Defendant's claims of Vexatious Litigant

unsubstantiated, without merit, and without any substance with the purpose and "intent" to distract the court from the real issue which is the "Corruption" in Court to manipulate and sell decisions against the poor, colored, and uneducated in a Judicial Scam conducted and applied in our Court System today; that is based on greed and Unjust Rewards to commit Judicial Theft, using the courts as a "Tool" or "Instrument", instead of a place for the people to receive true Justice! For Proof, see and review case(s) BC 402096 & BS 118244 where Plaintiff, Jose Castaneda was sanctioned by the Court, after Attorneys Jack K. Conway conspires with Paz and Mercado to extend their services to steal from Plaintiff, and the Court grants an Entry of Default on 1912 Declaratory Judgment. I was sanctioned Almost a Million Dollars in the BC 402096 case, and $22,00.00 in the BS118244 case for having posted in the Internet the testimony of

11
12

13
14 15 16

17

Attorney Sonia Mercado on a YOUTUBE site! Who gets sanctioned almost a "MILLION
18 19 20 21 22
23

DOLLARS", as a "Part Time" worker without any evidence of any damages? This act alone demands a "Review" when someone get "Sanctioned" almost a Million Dollars based on an opinion, with no evidence to support their clam, complaint, or charges! This really proves my Charge of Judicial Bribery and Payola! Who almost gets sanction a million dollars?

1119.

For additional information and further Proof, see the Request on file with the Court of

24 25 26 27 28

Appeals filed on 2/13/2011, as two Attorneys, Paz and Mercado were alleging (falsely) and "In Concert" claiming that I am a Vexatious Litigant by claiming that I had filed cases that were filed against me based on a lie by Attorney Mercado that: "Luis Castaneda left millions in his Estate
from a previous accident .... " Yes, my brother Luis had an 8.4 million dollar, but in a

"Trans america annuity" fund or Judgment at the time of his death, caused by the Sheriff's
\ \ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT AGAINST lUDGE PHILLIP HICKOK AND THE CORRUPTION IN COURT

Page 11\

1
2

Department when he died in the Sherriff's Department custody. It is irresponsible and criminal to accuse me by telling my brothers that I had "depleated all the funds"! It was not a Lump Sum, it was over time, but "ONLY" if he lived! The Attorneys thoueht that my family was awarded

3
4

this amount all at once. which was NOT true and gave the wrong information to everyone
including COURTS!!!! Attorneys Mercado and Paz are not disclosing to this Court that when Attorney Mercado first appear to testily at my trial in Pasadena Courthouse, in my court case GC 031549, as my brother Jesus was suing me for millions, or based on incorrect information given by Attorney Mercado because she lied, as she sets the family against one another to make more Attorneys Fees by more of her lies to make even more money! Because she was Greedy, and

5
6 7

8
9

wanted more money, Mercado lied about the Final Judgment; She said that I had stole six million
10

dollars from my family, and now I have the millions hidden somewhere because Attorney Mercado wanted my family to fight with each other for financial gain? This criminal act, false statement, and the lie, was the start of the corruption and Judicial Scam for Attorneys to start the "STEALING PROCESS" from my family, using the court as a "tool" or "instrument" to conduct this theft for ill got gains! 20.

11
12

13
l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22

The following two entries can be found in the Court of Appeals case information for the

Appeal B 223549, to case BC 402096 and BS 118244: 02/16/2011 Respondent's brief. Plaintiff and Respondent: Mercado, Sonia Attorney: Richard Samuel Paz Plaintiff and Respondent: Paz, Samuel Richard Attorney: Richard Samuel Paz filed with permission (oversize attachment)
02/18/2011 Opposition filed. by appellant: declaration in opposition finding appellant a

vexatious litigant and request appelle respond to all cases cityed on page 3 of appelle's motion

**clerk's note: respondent apparently asks in respondent's brief that this court make a finding that appellant is a vexatious litigant
The Court of Appeals swept this matter under the Carpet because of who Attorney Mr. Paz is, the former ACLU vice-president, who is now a thief and a liar. I was set up to lose with the Order by Justice Turner of October 12! The Court Opinions filed on 5/16/2011, on Page 5, at bottom of page as number 2, second part of paragraph reads: WE ALSO DENY PLANITIFFS' REOUEST FOR AN ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS PROVIDE
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE PHILLIP HICKOK AND THE CORRUPTION IN COURT

23
24 25

26 27
28

Page 12!