CORRUPT JUDGES IN CALIFORNIA
The California Justice Systems, both civil and criminal have corrupt officials in offices from San Bernardino County to the State Supreme Court. This web site will detail with known names of these criminal officials and cite the evidence that proves my accusations fully. Another site under construction will deal District Attorney Dennis Stout and with Superior Court judges that support his criminal acts. This site is:
http://hometown.aol.com/padinko/myhomepage/profile.html This web site will concentrate on judges named in Workers Compensation at lower level. Others, such as those in higher Courts are not known, like so many others in public office their stench is so high no names are listed, but their corruptness is clearly shown when they ignore the lies of David Bjelland, for example. This judge records two defense witnesses who disagree: Marinis says Tamimi helped me. Tamimi says Tamimi did not. One has lied. Bjelland calling both and all truthful has lied. Anyone who then accepts his word when it is shown he lied over and over is clearly not fit for public service. I have made these accusations in letters to all these crooks and the only reason I am not sued is because I can prove them. This web site will be under construction and will remain open so that public can read entries daily as I make them. Bear with me and eventally you will find data on corrupt judges and others in California. Meanwhile, continue and then go to: http://members.aol.com/dpankey/advice/index.htm . Thank you and please check back later.
I am not a lawyer but represented Susan Riegel in Workers Compensation cases SBR 0176674, SBR 0169010, SBR 0250789 against the San Bernardino City Unified School District (hereafter referred to as SD) before Judge David N. Bjelland using 22 days from 1995/97. First of all, only one incident cited in trial by defense had any thing to do with either the stress claim of February 1990 or the later back injury of August 22, 1990. That was the events on the day of the back injury. Records show we did not enter any of the evidence or exhibits to support any injury claim as the corrupt District Attorney has lied and charged. We entered evidence only to show others were lying. I challenge anyone I accuse of lying to prove they are not. Dennis Stout's conduct will be more fully covered in another web site. The attorney defending the SD was Philip A. Mark. Principal witnesses called by defense were Riegel's boss Frank Ayala, Jerilynn Westendorf, Esther Juarez, Cindy Tamimi, Patty Marinis, Shirley Nicholson, Deputy Sheriff Dale Gregory, Dave Vineyard, Joe Woodford, Starr Pease, and in 1997, a witness I had on my list he did not, in addition to all witnesses Mark had listed, Arlene Wilmes. We also called Mark and myself as witness. Mark was questioned also by another attorney from his law firm, who knew Mark was lying and thus will be counted among these crooks. We also listed all witnesses, all doctors and all the evidence Mark had listed even though we were not going to submit it unless he didn't as the SD had all evidence already. We did submit answering machine tape to prove Gregory had called and harassed Riegel. Mark was unaware Riegel had copied all her official personnel records up to 1992. He was caught again and again in lies. Evidence shows he repeatedly conspired with others to change, add to, or create false documents that lacked the Personnel Office date stamps showing they were once in official records. We did not submit our copies as the ones in the Court documents should have been the same. We were forewarned by a Dwayne Murphy, a State paid employee to insure fairness, who fully knew the corruptness of Mark and Bjelland, but who had never seen one item of the evidence, we could never win. This official has failed to do his job and I yet have dated proof of this, as I do of other incidents that have never been revealed. For example, I can prove Arlene Wilmes never said her wedding date, yet we find one in her testimony. Bjelland knew this, he added it to his summary of her testimony. I can prove it is her voice as we have the other tapes Mark made of her voice. We have tapes that show Dr. Carl Murask lied Riegel sat through his interview and never took a break. We have copies of that interview, continued to when Riegel joined me and others outside office and then on into bathroom where a toilet flush is heard. We have other evidence that I have stated in letters I take my Fifth Amendment rights on. When Mark could not find a local crook doctor to lie at his rate, he paid for a limousine at her dispoal to take Riegel to San Gabriel to see Murasak. I went to see him also but before Riegel and insured she did not go alone. All doctors reports are beyond belief. You will see all have lied, even when they had correct data. Beware the crooks Dr. Carl Murasak, Dr. Harvey Wieseltier, and Dr. Harvey Oshrin.
The felonies that Dennis Stout, San Bernardino County DA later in 1999 falsely charged Riegel with is fraud, five counts of Penal Code 1874. This code makes it a felony to illegal to make a false statement to support or deny a claim, both punishable by same penalty. Note 'to deny'. The records will show Bjelland allowed defense witnesses to lie openly, disputing their own or that of other defense witness earlier testimony, to change testimony at will, to lie in the face of evidence, and lied himself openly to deny claims. For example, Mark lied under oath he did not get Discovery (Riegel's personnel records) from SD until around December 23, 1995 as reason he gave it to us on first day of actual trial, January 1996. He denied ever making and giving doctors false data in what were titled medical summaries. He said he often made and then titled 'excerpts' but had not to anyone in these cases. Mark was unaware he had sent some evidence to one of the four previous incompetent attorneys Riegel had, who passed it on to her. After he had lied under oath he had not sent a Dr. Harvey Wieseltier personnel records and thus had to have had before 1995, I entered the Wieseltier December 10, 1990 letter in which Wieseltier acknowledges to Mark reicept of the two sets Mark had sent. Mark had lied. I showed the medical summaries with his mark he had to admit was his. He had lied. Bjelland says all defense witnesses were truthful, while it is he who signed that they had stated in summaries the very lies I am relating. He added statements never spoken. He omitted key evidence, such as Vineyard's answer, "to print one page required twenty seconds". The letter denying back injury claim was signed and sent Riegel on October 4, 1990 by Jerilynn Westendorf. This witness could not produce or cite the doctor's report she lied she had used to deny claim. She had none. She had lied to deny claim. The DA knows this, but becomes an accomplice to this. I have informed him personally. She had caused this lie to be entered in evidence. She then placed the decision to deny on Mark. This is irrefutable evidence of a proven fraud . This is a proven conspiracy. This is submitting false evidence by these three. DA and Bjelland all ignored, condoned, and abetted these crimes. Both also ignored that the valid doctors report Westendorf had kept in the records actually said injury was job caused. It was not copied by Riegel as they illegally kept two sets of records. Both crooked judges and DA have ignored that Mark paid an additional $1500.00 in 1995 to get it changed over my objection. Other officials have improperly allowed. I have letters sent by certified mail to prove they knew. Neither DA, Bjelland or Mark can cite with proof Riegel has ever lied, not once. Where they have attempted will be covered when DA Dennis Stout is positively shown to be a vile criminal. In fact, none of these crooks have ever stated where any reference to evidence, to where any statement or fact, is to be found, such as page, paragraph, or line number to support a statement made by any of these lying crooks. Bjelland is found a liar by his one attempt on the 72-hour hold he lied about. This is irrefutable evidence. One other such clearly false statement is that Vineyard said Riegel printed out an invitation, but you will never see where it states this will be found. It won't be found. Vineyard has never said it. He never said it in 1997. He never said it in 1999. He found times events happened and since four defense witnesses and Riegel give times she was nowhere near her computer and thus she could not have done this It shows five and more people, in trial alone including Bjelland lied. Four of these people lie again in 1999. I cited page, etc. where it is found that he denied that, but Mark could not find and did not cite one place where evidence can be found. I will cite references later and will send to anyone who requests by e-mail where any evidence proving false anything he cites can be found. I will send actual copies. What are odds three people who lied Vineyard confronted Riegel will say exactly same words, "and she turned really red?" What are chances all witnesses will describe Riegel with same word as "bizarre?" What are odds all will say "she looked stiff, swollen and bruised?" every word and word order being the same? Mark coached all to lie. Bjelland said Riegel has lied she was never held on a 72-hour hold in Ward B. He cited the November 24, 1988 hospital report as proof. What does it show? NOT ADMITTTED, showing this judge, and actually Mark who drafted Bjellland's Finding of July 29, 1997, have again lied. Credibility of both is totally shot. In this finding Bjelland orders SD to file fraud charges against Riegel. He ignores the numerous admitted in official reports to Westendorf and Mark crimes as criminal trespassing, stalking, peeking into bedrooms at night, etc. of Paul Chance, private investigator. He says Riegel should seek justice in a civil court on Chance.He ignores all the many crimes defense witnesses, of Mark. He actually does not intend charges be filed and has so informed DA and next level Appeals Board he is only intimidating Riegel. This board of unknown persons does not agree with Bjelland who had stated my representation of Riegel was faulty (grounds for another appeal, if so) and most importantly did not go along with filing charges against Riegel. Only when DA become convinced Riegel was not intimidated to drop her claims and I am going to expose this cancer in this county, did he act. When I informed him of my web site, he began wasting the taxpayers money in this criminal prosecution of Riegel. That is why I have written the Board of Supervisors who are aware of his vile acts and do nothing. The facts I relate will show this body, in failing to rein in the DA by refusing to fund these illegal acts, have put this county at risk. Their failure to act adds credence that this County has more corrupt officials than any other. I say Mark actually drafted Bjelland's Finding before end of trial as there are many such screw-ups as the Ward B lie. Mark continued to insist Riegel was a patient there even when the record showed she was not admitted. Another key item ignored was Mark's admission, he felt before any questions were asked would contribute that he had guessed distance he placed on Drawing J. He had read where Riegel had stated she had moved a box about three feet when she felt a sharp pain in he back. That was where he got the idea to falsify Drawing J. He also wanted to show her as being in front of Juarez in August 1990. This is just more evidence of his criminal intent. It backs up Juarez on saying he guessed, who lied about so much other things. I objected to its admission, but knew its measure can never be a legal one as it had no disclaimer. It does not say measure is estimated, it does not say fairly represents. It had no tolerance as no measure can be fully positive. It was a hard and fast measurement of three and one half feet. That's 42 inches, but without the plus/minus amount needed to be legally accurate. He did not expect me to tear it apart and his first question to Marinis and others was if it fairly represented the office. I asked if it was accurate. All lied it was, knowing measurement was only a guess. I knew Marinis did not know what three and one half feet was, even if shown. Her reply to what this was in inches? "I don't have my calculator". Records consistently show others lied and this is ignored by officials all the way to two State attorneys general, governors, past and present, who ignore. I have proof of this. I will notify them of the updated web site.
Riegel worked for the SD as secretary and senior secretary from March 1988 to February 1992. (Court testimony and records by others will falsely state 1987 to May 1991 in an attempt to suit their purposes, such as to cover carelessly fabricated false reports and memos, even after being corrected by us over and over). Riegel, after working for another SD office and competent supervisor since 1988, went to Cajon H.S. in February 1990, when this school was beset with extreme problems and had a principal that failed to restore order. Her performance reports are all outstanding throughout. Efforts were also unsuccessfully made during trial to infer that Riegel had a problem with alcohol. From emphasizing that restuarants she went to also served alcohol, to calling establishments, such as Castaways, Pinnacle Peak, Wackley's, who had food specialties, bars to having false testimony by Marinis that Riegel had invited her to go to bars. This same Marinis is one who said Riegel kept to herself, would not associate with her and others, who lied she feared Riegel, etc. Nowhere is it found or even stated in any official SD document is any problem with alcohol was noted. No record from trial anywhere has any legal medical finding Riegel was intoxicated. Even where any medical record or other report indicates an odor of alcohol present, no medical finding of intoxication is found. Riegel filed a stress claim at Cajon H.S., but later dropped it, with a possibility of refile, for a transfer to the SD offices. Joe Woodford, Personnel Director, admitted objective to fire her after she filed against SD. That February 22 date, Ayala, her boss started an illegal unfavorable file without her knowledge. He carelessly dated it falsely and later he and others swore under oath date as February 2. That Riegel had worked for this time, even not once was counseled for anything, shows the statement of Bjelland, (not entitled to be called anything but corrupt) that she was looking for a convenient hook for her problems, one of this criminal judge's many lies. From that day, when Riegel began immediately to note bad treatment, tolerated it, and still did an outstanding job that even Ayala recorded, false notes, etc. are seen increasing when Riegel did nothing wrong.
On August 22, Riegel injured her back lifting one of three boxes she was told by Ayala to get out of an aisle. Ayala and three others falsely testified boxes were never left in aisles. Wilmes, a defense witness was never coached by Mark on this and testified boxes were. Bjelland lied all were truthful. Juarez was only witness present. In testimony, she stated she, as Riegel, had given a Statement of that afternoon, on August 31, 1990 and had a copy. Bjelland in another of his conspiratory acts, would not order it provided. We later see in 2000 why. It does not follow her testimony. The date given was also a lie, based on evidence we have. She might have actually gave one in 1990, but the only one surfacing so far if rom 1995. Judge and Mark feared we might have a copy somehow and would spring it out to rebut her testimony so Bjelland kept it from us illegally. That this 1990 Statement agreed with her then testimony that even itself then was shown to be false, was further proved false by the illegally withheld 1995 Statement that surfaced in 1999. The felon Dennis Stout's goons provided it. It is certain Mark was not aware in 1999, it was to be given to us. Juarez lied in sworn testimony she was positive she did not see, did not hear, and Riegel did not drop a box or hurt her back that afternoon. She knew then as she testified this certainly was not what she had said in this 1995 Statement that DA also ignored in 1999. Mark and Westendorf also knew because they had approved what was said word for word in a letter even before it was signed. They also withheld it. I have both Statement and the letter. She had said in Statement box drop was so soft she could not hear it and that she could not say Riegel was not injured. Juarez lied Drawing J that Mark in 1996 submitted and Bjelland allowed, was fully in all ways accurate. She then admitted Mark had only guessed the measurement he placed on it and thus that it could never be accurate. Mark then in his Points and Authority admitted in a notarized affidavit, he guessed the distance. This was after he had suborned perjury and violated several other penal codes. This meant several other felonies on his part and anyone else who said Drawing was accurate was lying under oath. Bjelland knew this. Tamimi and Marinis lied it was accurate. Mark also in an affividt admitted getting an employee to eavesdrop, another felony Bjellnd ignored.Juarez lied she was positive Elmer Wilmes never came into the office that afternoon to deliver mail and weigh box as she never took a piss break even. She later changed this, saying he might have come in and she not see. Clearly perjury. She lied Riegel sat in front of her that 8/22 afternoon and that Riegel had moved there after 8/7, and had moved desk position only this once. Then she said that Riegel was there in May 1991, as Riegel was. Then later said she did not know where she sat in April 1991. In front of her in August,never moved again, was still there in May, but Juarez did not know where she sat in April? Bjelland said she was truthful? I see two liars here. She lied several times about seating not mentioned here. She lied Dave Vineyard confronted and accused Riegel of printing an invitation. Tamimi and Marinis also tell this lie and all say exact words "Riegel turned really red." Both Riegel and he deny he ever talked to her at all that day. Bjelland heard this, clearly someone has lied and all defense witnesses cannot have been truthful. Marinis: "Juarez and Tamimi helped me draft memos." Tamimi: "I never did". One has lied.The DA does not charge any of these persons. Bjelland has lied. Nothing he states is to be believed.
On August 23, 1990 Ayala wrote a memo and later falsely testified under oath in 1996 that in May 1990 Riegel had told him she had hurt her back lifting vacuums for Pace store. (Three other witnesses repeated these lies. An official from Eureka said she never worked for Pace, was never injured at work.) She had denied telling Ayala this and the Ayala memo dated May 23 we placed in evidence stated exactly what she said she had stated. She pulled a muscle in April lifting a flower pot at home was what he said she told him. No vacuums, no Pace as others also repeated when Riegel never worked for Pace. Riegel was fully recovered by April 25. Mark then attempted without success to get a Dr. Dark to change his record that said Riegel had cancelled an appointment as she was feeling great. Ayala continued to say she had stated what he falsely testified to, showing his testimony or memo false. He was further proven a liar when another of his memos, September 14, 1990, admits his August 23 story as more lies. He admits again how lifting a flower pot caused muscle pull. Looking at a dentist's note, the actual dental bill, telling of the June 18, 1990 Riegel appointment, he continued to lie she did not go to it. This man is a super liar, will be kicked out of hell just after Mark for lying. He testified she had an altercation with Marinis on October 3 and he had written this in a document. He insisted this was right. He also had written another for her not coming into office at all that same October 3, 1990 date. Pay records and even a calendar showed she was on vacation. He had a calendar he was referring to that I was able to get judge to order provided. It showed vacation and she was not there. He continued to lie and Bjelland allowed. None of the three calendars then in evidence agreed with any other. In 1999, we find that a withheld Westendorf 1995 letter to Mark DA unintentionally provides in 1999 admits SD could not provide accurate records. DA has given me more evidence in 2000 to cite that shows he has become a conspirator. One calendar showed unknown for five days, a falsification Mark initiated in a losing effort to cast Riegel in a bad light. We had notes made by defense witnesses that recorded Riegel's five notices in calls to them. Witness lied they did not know where she was on a certain day, but had to admit initials were their own on notes and they did know. Ayala also wrote Riegel letters of reprimand for failing to come to work, for failure to call in and for calling Tamimi a bitch April 26, 1991. He wrote in second one she had called in and then called again to call her a bitch. Proof she did call in. Mark saw in records a day Riegel was absent and had Ayala write a false memo April 9, 1991 Riegel had called him at 1:00 a.m. A note we had copied showed Tamimi had stated Ayala had called her and stated Riegel had called him in evening of April 8. Ayala had lied again. He lied under oath it was 1:00 a.m. even looking at this evidence. Tamimi in 1997 testimony lied Deputy Gregory had answered a complaint about 10:00 p.m.. In 1999, she confuses her coaching on false testimony. She now says it was at 1:00 a.m.. This was the time Mark had originally coached her to say in 1997. When it was admitted to counter what Ayala had said, she had to agree the note was one she wrote and Mark had removed. Again and again Ayala is shown lying, disputing his own memo writing. Bjelland, DA ignore. Ayala had written a letter saying Riegel had been absent over sixty percent of time and testified to this as he consulted his calendar. I was able to get a copy. That made three SD false calendars that did not agree with even one of the others. In 1999, DA provides us with the letter where Westendorf advises Mark, SD cannot provide true attendance records. Calendars had already proved this.Since this was prior to trial, Mark and she knew these records false yet put them forth as true evidence. More evidence of fraud is thus displayed.
Tamimi and Marinis wrote and orally lied Riegel had made harassing phone calls: while they were at work as they had often seen her dial a number, pause without speaking and hang up. Huh?Tamimi in 1997 testimony lied Gregory came to her house on a complaint about 10:00 on an official complaint. To DA, 1999, it was now at 1:00 a.m.. Gregory was assigned to Loma Linda and told same lie. I personally called Gregory's boss and found no complaint existed, and called for Gregory. He returned my call, I forcefully told him what I had found, that he was harassing Riegel on his own, no complaint existed. In trial, we established Tamimi lived on Redlands Boulevard, in Redlands and in a city Gregory would not be sent to. Tamimi could not state her numbered address in trial, but Bjelland later added one to her summary and also to a transcript. Do judges personally send out transcripts requested? Gregory said he had never talked to Riegel, but talked to an answering machine that night. Tamimi said he got answering machine and then she answered. She said Gregory then laid it on thick to her, explaining there would be a penalty, etc. Gregory could not explain how he would be sent to Redlands when it has it own police force. He lied he did not know what shift he was on. He was on Day Shift and would not be on at 10:00 p.m.. He lied he did not recall ever talking to me. Then changing this, stated later, my call had stuck in his mind as no one had ever talked to him that way. He could not explain why he would allow unlawful interference in what he was testifying was an official investigation. Tamimi also lied and falsified a note at Mark's request, she could hear Riegel in background as Wilmes called in for Riegel. Wilmes, blackmailed as will be discussed later, in 1997 lied under oath she and Riegel had discusssed this call before it was made. In 1999, she now again says they did not ever discuss, it was Wilmes' idea alone to say Riegel had an auto accident and would not be in and Riegel was not in room. This is what she said in a 1996 tape we were never meant to ever hear before Mark blackmailed her in 1997 to testify falsely. Bjelland, refused its admission during trial. Actually a series of tapes, some edited to erase they were secretly recorded that Mark used to blackmail Wilmes to falsely testify. He did order it provided, I believe only when the Presiding Judge, so ordered. It was provided when Mark was out of the US or Mark would have refused to hand it over. Trial had ended when tapes and their transcripts were provided. Wilmes 1999 interviewt shows Tamimi had lied in her note and testimony. The background addition was not on copy of note we had, Mark had them added. Tamimi added "sounds like long distance" on another note when Riegel called in to say she would not be in after the last day of some time off. This was also Mark's doing. He had unaltered copies of all actual notes that were forwarded to Personnel kept by Ayala for his later use. He had Tamimi add this addition in an effort to attempt to show Riegel was not in town when she called. Again Riegel never had any travel restrictions and could have been on the moon if she desired. Copy we had did not have this fabricated addition and Tamimi could not explain how a long distance call sounded in 1991. She could not explain why the Court copy did not have the date stamp our copy did. It was because it was never in Riegel's records. This was a recurring finding, numerous unsuccessful attempts to portray Riegel as falsely representing a situation. Marinis wrote many false memos, but could not explain why she did not ever state in any memo that she over heard Riegel say she was taking prozac. Mark attempted to infer with Marini's false testimony Riegel was taking drugs after seeing prozac prescribed in her records. Riegel denied ever taking prozac although prescribed. She still had every pill of the prescription and Mark checked the data on each pill with Beeman's Pharmacy and found as she stated, she had taken not one of the 25 prescibed. Riegel had medical restrictions against long walking, sitting or standing. Mark attempted to infer Riegel had flown and then rode in a car from Omaha, Nebraska to Iowa. First off, she never had any travel restrictions. She had requested and was seated where she could stand and walk whenever she wanted. Secondly, Iowa is less than five minutes from Nebraska across a bridge. Again and again Mark and Bjelland are shown as the snakes they are. Bjelland, two WC Presiding Judges, DA, Superior Court Presiding Judge, two Civic and Criminal Appelate Courts, two State Attorneys General, two governors and the State Supreme Court all ignore these criminal acts and allow DA to maliciously prosecute Riegel when not one item of evidence exists. Marinis wrote a memo in 1990 in which she states she had seen Riegel pass her house the day before, looking at her house the second time she passed. Just this and nothing else. A note also stated she was seen in the neighborhood of Marinis.In trial, after Mark's coaching she lied Riegel had stalked her, followed her from work, stopped, got out of car, and looked at her mail box, using two minutes to do so and then went on. She said she feared Riegel and other things she had not stated in the memo as one would expect, as Mark often said, "events were fresh in her mind." Riegel said she went there, not knowing Marinis lived there, to look at a house for rent to buy beyod her house. The photos we entered showed what Marinis had said was physically impossible. She could not explain why her May 10, 1991 memo did not state all the things on her street she now stated. Mail box was located over 50 feet from the street, 30 feet up a sidewalk toward her house, and a person would have to park car in a cutout, exit car, and walk up towrd house to look at mail box as she described. Houses were not $300,000 as she had lied, there was a house for sale beyond hers and neither she or antone else had ever passed her house without passing a second time as she lived on a deadend street. Marinis was allowed to run child-like amok in the office as she admitted she ran screaming into office when she lied she had found the altered invitation in her printing. This will be discussed later and will show it was imposssible for this invitation to be found among the 19 pages she printed that day. It will be shown only she, Juarez,or Tamimi could have done this. In process, Aug.29, 2001. In the meantime check out continuing web site:
http://hometown.aol.com/padinko/myhomepage/profile.html
Posts
