So...Why Isn't The Attorney in Jail?

Janet C. Phelan, Objector in propria personam 258 A Street 1-15 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Telephone: (323) 515-4889 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - CENTRAL DISTRICT PROBATE DIVISION In re: The James R. Phelan and Amalie M. Phelan Family Trust No.: RIP080974 MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE California Evidence Code 451 Judge: Gary Tranbarger Department: 7 Date: October 8, 2009 Time: 8:30 a.m. For the purpose of the court taking proper action in light of the Respondent's Opposition to Petition for Surcharge/Tort,the Court must take mandatory judicial notice of its own records, including its rulings,orders and all documents filed in this matter .Pursuant to California Evidence section 451, the court must take judicial notice of: Judicial notice shall be taken of the following: (a) The decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state and of the United States and the provisions of any charter described in Section 3, 4, or 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. (b) Any matter made a subject of judicial notice by Section 11343.6, 11344.6, or 18576 of the Government Code or by Section 1507 of Title 44 of the United States Code. (c) Rules of professional conduct for members of the bar adopted pursuant to Section 6076 of the Business and Professions Code and rules of practice and procedure for the courts of this state adopted by the Judicial Council.(d) Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure prescribed by the United States Supreme Court, such as the Rules of the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Admiralty Rules, the Rules of the Court of Claims, the Rules of the Customs Court, and the General Orders and Forms in Bankruptcy. (e) The true signification of all English words and phrases and of all legal expressions. (f) Facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. In addition, Evidence code 452 states that Judicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not embraced within Section 451: (a) The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States and the resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of this state. (b) Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States. (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States. (d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States. (e) Rules of court of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States. (f) The law of an organization of nations and of foreign nations and public entities in foreign nations. (g) Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. (h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. Petitioner requests that the court take mandatory judicial notice of 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. A certificate of the oath shall be endorsed upon his license. Petitioner asks the court to take mandatory judicial notice of Business and Professions Code 6067, which states 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. A certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license. Petitioner also requests the Court to take mandatory judicial notice of BPC 6068, which states: It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following: (a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state. (b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. (c) 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. (d) 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. (e) (1) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every per to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client. In light of the misrepresentations made by attorney Horspool in his Opposition, Petitioner requests the court take mandatory judicial notice of Business and Professions code 6128 (A) and (C), which states: Every attorney is guilty of a misdemeanor who either: (a) Is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party. (b) Willfully delays his client's suit with a view to his own gain. (c) Willfully receives any money or allowance for or on account of any money which he has not laid out or become answerable for. Any violation of the provisions of this section is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both. In light of numerous statements constituting misrepresentation of fact by attorney Horspool in his Opposition, Petitioner also requests the court take mandatory judicial notice of California Penal Code 125 which states: An unqualified statement of that which one does not know to be true is equivalent to a statement of that which one knows to be false. Petitioner also requests the court take mandatory judicial noticeof CPC 182, wherein it states: (a) If two or more persons conspire: (1) To commit any crime. (2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime. (3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action, or proceeding. (4) To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses or by false promises with fraudulent intent not to perform those promises. (5) To commit any act injurious to the public health,to public morals,or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws. (6) To commit any crime against the person of the President or Vice President of the United States, the Governor of any state or territory, any United States justice or judge, or the secretary of any of the executive departments of the United States.They are punishable as follows: When they conspire to commit any crime against the person of any official specified in paragraph (6), they are guilty of a felony and are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for five, seven,or nine years. When they conspire to commit any other felony, they shall be punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of that felony. If the felony is one for which different punishments are prescribed for different degrees, the jury or court which finds the defendant guilty thereof shall determine the degree of the felony the defendant conspired to commit. If the degree is not so determined, the punishment for conspiracy to commit the felony shall be that prescribed for the lesser degree, except in the case of conspiracy to commit murder, in which case the punishment shall be that prescribed for murder in the first degree. If the felony is conspiracy to commit two or more felonies which have different punishments and the commission of those felonies constitute but one offense of conspiracy, the penalty shall be that prescribed for the felony which has the greater maximum term. When they conspire to do an act described in paragraph (4), they shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. When they conspire to do any of the other acts described in this section, they shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or in the state prison, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. When they receive a felony conviction for conspiring to commit identity theft, as defined in Section 530.5, the court may impose a fine of up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). All cases of conspiracy may be prosecuted and tried in the superior court of any county in which any overt act tending to effect the conspiracy shall be done. (b) Upon a trial for conspiracy, in a case where an overt act is necessary to constitute the offense, the defendant cannot be convicted unless one or more overt acts are expressly alleged in the indictment or information, nor unless one of the acts alleged is proved; but other overt acts not alleged may be given in evidence. The above notice will enable the court to view attorney Horspool's misrepresentation of fact, court rulings and records, evidence previously provided to the court and the pertinent laws in the proper perspective. Memorandum of Points and Authority I. FACTS Petitioner filed a petition for surcharge on June 1, 2009, alleging numerous acts of fraud, misappropriation of funds, theft; breach of fiduciary duty, concealment, material misrepresentation,perjury and conspiracy, On_July 29, 2009 Horspool filed a response, denying the allegations. In many instances, Horspool denied that the court took actions which are a matter of court record, both in Los Angeles Superior Court and in Riverside Superior Court. In the face of the evidence, the denials constitute false statements and misrepresentations of fact. These misrepresentations appear to be made in order to exonerate Horspool and his client, Objector Melodie Scott, from culpability for the very serious allegations being made by Petitioner: The denials in themselves constitute a breach of law. To highlight the gravity of the misrepresentation of fact, Petitioner draws attention to the statements made in paragraph 14 of the Opposition , wherein Objector states that "the $30,000 was deposited into a new money market account owned by the Trust, being account no.21661627." This is, in fact, the account number that the thirty thousand was DEBITED from, and Petitioner provided the bank statement for May 2004 as evidence. Petitioner has since come into possession of even more bank records containing more evidence of sizable withdrawals that are not accounted for by the official accounting. Petitioner must ask the court to take notice of such serious misstatements of fact, which are often ludicrous in content, and appear to be a desperate effort by Objector and her attorney to exonerate themselves from serious allegations and evidence of criminal misconduct. I request the court to take mandatory judicial notice that each and every one of the misrepresentations by Horspool are verified by Melodie Scott and thus constitute conspiracy under California Penal Code 182. Making such misstatements to the court and a party is not only a criminal act, but ethical misconduct so egregious that upon a finding or conviction the attorney is subject to disbarment. Petitioner also requests the court to take notice that while Horspool filed his Opposition to the Petition for Surcharge/Tort on July 29, 2009, Petitioner did not receive the answer. Petitioner then repeatedly contacted Objector's attorney, requesting he fax her his answer. On August 12, 2009 Petitioner received a fax from Horspool indicating he would instead mail the answer to her address in Ashland, OR. Horspool had previously been advised that Petitioner was out of the US at that time. Horspool did not mail Petitioner the answer until August 20th, the day Petitioner had set to leave Canada. As a result of his flagrant disregard of Petitioner's need to be served with these papers, Petitioner did not receive the papers until September 3, 2009. The Court needs to take notice that Horspool and his client have a history of ignoring the law in terms of supplying proof of service; to wit, the Court needs to take notice that in terms of the TRO levied against Petitioner by Objector on June 13, 2002 that the court's own records state that no Proof of service was ever supplied. Both these acts constitute violations and appear to be efforts by Horspool to conceal his actions from Petitioner. The misrepresentations by Horspool in the Opposition, done in collusion with his client, Objector Melodie Scott follow in numerical order per the paragraphs designated in their Opposition: 3 (e) Misrepresentation of law governing double damages. PC 859 clearly states that double damages apply. 6 Ludicrous and bizarre misrepresentation of fact re my statement that I have personal knowledgeand can testify to this knowledge. 8 Horspool makes a brazen denial of what he knows to be proper court procedure. His disregard for court procedure is well illustrated by his failure to serve Petitioner (or apparently anyone else) with his Opposition. When I requested he fax me the Opposition he engaged in more subterfuge, to wit; he faxed me a letter on August 12th, 2009 in which he stated he would mail the Opposition to my Oregon address. This Opposition was, in fact, mailed eight days later. His utter disregard for appropriate and legal procedure, evidenced by his recent failure to serve also manifested in his failure to notify me in December of 2002 that Scott was amending the Trust.This failure should render void the amendment, which appointed Scott as Successor Trustee and should render void all her subsequent actions in this matter. 10 Misrepresentation of court record. On June 1, 2009, through an order of the court, Melodie Scott was removed as Trustee and the Public Guardian's office was appointed. While Scott is pathetically alleging she had petitioned to be removed; the fact remains that she has failed to be granted a fiduciary license and is unable by law to function as a Trustee; The statement of issue produced by the California State Fiduciary Board lists as a cause of action that she has continued to act in a fiduciary capacity following the denial of her license and lists this case as one in which she had continued to act, in defiance of the law. 11.Misrepresentation of fact. Melodie Scott was under a Grand Jury investigation which was leaked to the LA Times in article attached to the Petition/Tort as Exhibit 1. I personally had multiple conversations with the Grand Jury and turned over numerous documents to that body concerning Melodie Scott and David Horspool. 12 The Court is requested to take judicial notice of Count 6 of Petition for Surcharge and Tort which clearly cites the exercise of undue influence upon the court as a charge. The fact that Commissioner Joan Burgess violated Article 6 of the California State Constitution in her decision to overturn a ruling by a judge in Los Angeles Superior Court in no way exonerates Horspool and Scott for their culpability for illegal acts. 13.Misrepresentation of fact, provided to the court in a bank statement from Redlands Community Bank. The substance of Horspool's misrepresentation of the revelations provided by this bank statement are discussed in the next paragraph of this document. The intitial theft constitutes a felony and so does his misrepresentation. 14. Misrepresentation of fact, in attempt to cover up theft of assets. Horspool states that "In fact, the $30,000.00 was deposited into a new money market account owned by the Trust, being account no. 21661627." This is the account number that the $30,000.00 was DEBITED FROM, as conclusively shown in the bank statement provided as evidence in exhibit 2 in Petition for Surcharge and Tort. The Court must take judicial notice of the documents filed in this proceeding. 15. Horspool states that ¨”When Objector files final accounting, all her acts and actions with respect to the financial matters of the TRUST will be disclosed.” The fact is that this accounting was ordered by Commissioner McCoy to be filed by August 10th; 2009. Horspool altered the date when he prepared the minute order,; giving himself more time At this point in time, he has surpassed even his own altered date and has still not filed the accounting. The Court must take judicial notice of its own rules. 16. Objector makes numerous misrepresentations of fact in paragraph 16.These misrepresentations are also made in an ostensible attempt to cover up whatis pivotal evidence of financial misappropriation. Objector states"EXHIBIT 4 is clearly stamped 'VOID,' which would lead one to conclude that the check was never mailed." In fact, the check was mailed to me at 1223 Broadway in Santa Monica, which is where my postal box was located, and received when personally handed to me by the owner of that business. I still have the original of this check in my possession. One must ask why the Trustee would mail a check to this beneficiary which was stamped "VOID." OBJECTOR also complains that "PHELAN" does not understand how to read the General Ledger listing and to compare it to the Accountings that are already on file with the court."Petitioner hereby repeats that this check, which Petitioner has in her possession and was mailed to Petitioner by Objector is not listed in the General Ledger and is thus evidence that the former Trustee was issuing checks and not accounting for them in the General Ledger or to the court. 17. Misrepresentation of court record and the documents produced by Objector which were filed with the court in Petition for Surcharge and Tort. At the point of filing for surcharge the Petitioner had made repeated requests for records. Two of these requests were supplied to the court as exhibits 6 and 7 of that document. The first demand for discovery was issued by Petitioner on April 11, 2009,which was denied totally. After the Petition/Tort was filed, Petitioner issued a second demand for documents, which Objector responded to only agreeing to provide documents subsequent to November 2007. In an email received by Petitioner on August 11, 2009, Objector through her attorney now agrees to provide all "available" records but then subsequently refused to disclose those pertaining to Judith Phelan's trust. As Objector violated the trust document in refusing to split the monies at the death of the last settler and thus did not establish two separate trust but instead chose to feed the daughter bank accounts from the parent trust, there are, in fact ,no separate trusts. As it is the contention of the Petitioner that Objector heavily favored beneficiary Judith Phelan, thus violating probate code 16003 and other state and federal laws, the refusal to supply these records smacks of an attempt to cover up exactly what Petitioner is claiming. Petitioner is currently unable to pay the exorbitant costs of a copier service, due to the financial damage done by Objector and is researching other ways to copy the records. Objector has refused Petitioner the request that Petitioner copy the records which would have simplified the issue and allowed Petitioner discovery without incurring prohibitive costs. 20. Misrepresentation of fact in effort to exonerate Objector and Horspool from culpability for the massive and brutal impact of their malicious actions.. Objector has, in fact, repeatedly used the Trust as a weapon against Petitioner and has withheld court authorized payments necessary to petitioner’s survival 1) In March of 2002 when Objector issued a stop payment on the court authorized distribution for Petitioner as retribution for Petitioner taking her mother, Amalie Phelan, the conservatee, to see an attorney and also calling the police when the conservatee's home was robbed and 2) halting court authorized trust monies for a year and a half in retaliation for the loving and appropriate action of Petitioner in transporting the conservatee to the hospital when she was clearly in a perilous medical condition in June of 2002. Because of the resultant surgery the conservatee’s life was saved. The Objector did in fact retaliate against Petitioner by stopping court authorized trust payments resulting in unspeakable hardship for petitioner. The Objector and her attorney have repeatedly assaulted the Petitioner’s sanity and integrity in attempts to inflame the court’s prejudice against petitioner and to avert attention away from the vicious and repetitive financial assaults by Objector upon Petitioner. As a result of Objector’s actions, Petitioner lost her home, her car, most of her belongings and ended up homeless on the streets of Los Angeles for over three years, during which time Objector paid herself handsomely for ”managing” the Trust of which Petitioner is a beneficiary. The Court is to take judicial notice of the Trust document Article 5.4 d (5) which reads: “Each Trust is intended to insure that there shall always be a friend, advocate and protector of the legal rights of the beneficiary and to insure that the beneficiary shall receives services that will assist him/her in achieving a reasonable degree of happiness and normalcy.” The court is advised that during this period of homelessness that petitioner’s weight dropped to under 100 pounds, due to lack of money for food. This is directly and only due to Objector's refusal to release monies which the court had authorized in December of 2001. 21. See above, 20. 23. Horspool continues to attempt to mislead the court as to the true circumstances surrounding check #667. Check number 667 was mailed to me by Objector and I have it my possession. As the Trustee was thus obviously mailing out checks and not listing them in her ledger, my statements concerning this stand and I must now ask a further question--Why is the trustee mailing me checks which she now says were voided? Is it the practice of the Trustee to void out checks then mail them out? What would be the reasoning behind this?And since the Trustee is obviously mailing out checks and not listing them in her General Ledger, the questions concerning the fate ofthe other skipped/missing check numbers remains a salient concern. 24. Horspool is again attempting to mislead the court through misrepresentations of the court's own actions and subsequent events. I refer the court to the order after hearing on December 18, 2001, in which the court authorized payments of up to $1500 a month for each beneficiary. The trustee dutifullyissued these checks until March of 2002, when the Trustee put a stop order on my check for taking my mother to see a probate attorney in Laguna Hills and for calling the police when my mother's house was burglarized. There was no mention by the Trustee at this point in time of demonstration of need. There were no requests for receipts, for demonstration of income (the Trustee had been advised that I was on social assistance at that time). The trustee then halted the checks for over a yearand a half at the exact point when I brought my ill mother to the hospital where she was operated on to save her life. I must request that the court take notice of two things here: First, Horspool. is attempting to exonerate his egregious actions and those of his client by misrepresenting the situation surrounding the court authorized disbursements. Indeed, one need only check the First Accounting, filed March 21, 2003, Schedule B, Schedule 2 to see where the Trustee has herself termed these disbursements "per court authorized distribution." Unwilling to admit the heinousness of his client's her behavior towards me, which ultimately damaged me financially,physically and mentally, Horspool is now making misrepresentations of fact by stating that I 'refused to provide any information to substantiate" need when none was requested. In fact, I wrote a letter to attorney H. in the Fall of 2002 advising him that I had no money for food and was losing weight due to near starvation. Horspool and his client ignored my desperate plight. Once again, there was no request for documentation of need and there is no evidence of such a request supplied by Objector, only the unsworn statements of counsel which are bogus in their entirety and constitute violations of California Penal Code 182 and BPC 6128 , 6067 and 6068. 25. Misrepresentation of fact in order to exonerate Objector from egregious financial deprivation of this beneficiary,resulting in the loss of my car, the loss of my home, the loss of most of my belongings and three and a half years of homelessness. 27. Horspool misrepresents the fact that he issued two applications for restraining orders against PETITIONER which were void of necessity and void of fact. The court must take mandatory judicial notice of its own record and the two applications for restraining orders on file. The Court must take mandatory judicial notice of the hospital records of the conservatee, which prove the application for the June 2002 RO was made on false grounds. I again request the court to take judicial notice of California Penal Code 182 and BPC 6128 (a). 28. The court must here be noticed of California Penal Code 125,which states that “ An unqualified statement of that which one does not know to be true is equivalent to a statement of that which one knows to be false. “ In their eagerness to deny all my allegations, Objector and her attorney denied something wherein they have already admitted insufficient knowledge. This is a violation of CPC 125 29. Petitioner repeats the notice to the court in the above (28) 30. Objector falsely denies the allegation and offers no proof. There are witnesses who will be called when this comes to trial who will verify the truth of these allegations. 31.Apparently, Objector is stating through this denial that she did not have knowledge that my mother had lifesaving surgery as a result of her June 2002 hospitalization. As the TRO did not come to hearing until August of 2002, this is simply not possible and is a grave misrepresentation of fact, ostensibly to exonerate Objector and attorney Horspool from culpability. The Court is asked to take mandatory judicial notice of its own record to ascertain that no attempt was made by Objector to advise the court of her previous fraudulent assertions. 33. Horspool again misrepresents the facts through his denial of the allegations that Objector failed to correct her misrepresentations in support of TRO’s. The court record will support these allegations and will not support Horspool's denial. Objector also failed to correct her punitive and retaliatory withholding of funds which were court ordered and were necessary for the survival of this beneficiary even after I informed her attorney that I had no money for food. Her failure to inform the court and to correct her misrepresentations is a matter of court record and I ask the court to take mandatory judicial notice of the declaration by Objector in support TRO's and also of the accountings filed with the court wherein her withholding of funds is obvious. 34. Horspool is apparently denying he; in concert with Scott, acted with full knowledge of the consequences and damages to Plaintiff. By extension; this would mean that 1) Horspool and Scott had no knowledge that my mother received a pacemaker during her hospitalization in June of 2002 and that 2) Horspool and Scott had no awareness that their applications for Restraining Orders against Petitioner contained false statements and that 3) Horspool and Scott had no knowledge that severing a close and mutually supportive mother-child relationship would cause emotional distress to Plaintiff and that4) cutting off trust monies which the Trust itself states were necessary for Plaintiff would in any sense cause harm. Obviously, if the above were true, Horspool would be unfit to practice law and his client would be unfit to be occupying any position where her decisions could impact another person’s welfare. I posit quite the contrary; that these actions were taken with full understanding and utter disinterest in the impact upon Plaintiff: 36.The Court need take mandatory judicial notice that Horspool`s defamatory and libelous attacks on Janet Phelan have already been entered into the court file and are a matter of record. The court need note Exhibits 1 and 2 (check this) of Amendment to Declaration of Janet Phelan in support of Objections to the Second Accounting. 38.Objector appears to be denying what exists as a matter of court record, per the medical record concerning Amalie Phelan, conservatee. The court must take mandatory judicial notice of its own record. This document is on file several times in the court, as it was filed April 6, 2009 and other times. 39. Objector is misrepresenting the court record. Objector herself filed an admission that she had failed to do and inventory of the belongings of the conservatee. This facilitated her theft. Her admission that she failed in this fundamental capacity was filed with the court on September 20 , 2006, The objector also vastly misrepresents the fact of how many times I was allowed access to the storage unit. the court record itself will support that I was granted access once and only once. Shocked at the amount of theft of belongings,I repeatedly requested re-entrance to document the theft. When Objector failed to respond I filed a police report on February 7, 2007, which was forwarded to the DOJ and is also on record with the court. The incredible amounts of misrepresentation by Objector is utterly controverted by court and police records. 40. By denying the allegations made by Petitioner in paragraph 38 of her Petition, Horspool and Scott are misrepresenting the court record re the September 20, 2006 pleadings and misrepresenting the court record re the documentation of Probate Examiner Charles Mayr, dated 5/10/2004. I again request the court to take mandatory judicial notice of its own record and of BPC 6128, 6067 and 6068. 41. The Court must take mandatory judicial notice of California Penal Code 125, wherein it becomes a crime to make an assertion one does not know to be true. 42. Misrepresentation of fact contained in court record. The court need only review the Accountings to see when I was allowed into the storage space once and only once. The Court must take mandatory judicial notice of its own records. 43.The court must take mandatory judicial notice of its own record re the accountings filed by Objector in February of 2008 , wherein Horspool falsely states that Judge Lefkowitz in Los Angeles Superior Court had ordered he be paid his court costs. She denied his court costs, as a matter of record. The Court must take mandatory judicial notice that Petitioner produced the court record from the proceeding in Lefkowitz's court wherein she denied him his court costs. In an attempt at unjust enrichment, Horspool knowingly falsely represented a court order to the court. I again request the court to take mandatory judicial notice of California Penal Code 182 as well as BPC 6067, 6068 and 6128, These acts of misrepresentation of fact in pursuit of unjust enrichment by attorney HORSPOOL are in fact felonies committed by attorney Horspool in collusion with this client, Melodie Scott. 44. Horspool is again misrepresenting facts. The bank statements in my possession, leaked to me by an informant, do not match up with the accountings. I again refer the court to the Redlands Community Bank statement of May 2004 regarding the missing $30,000. 45. The court must take mandatory judicial notice of Penal Code 125. Horspool is admitting lack of knowledge then issuing a denial. 46.The court must take mandatory judicial notice of its own records, specifically the rankly illegal minute order issued by Judge Stephen Cunnison on August 1, 2002 as well as the notarized statement by Jack Smith. The court must take mandatory judicial notice of the order issued by Judge Stephen Cunnison on October 8, 2002, which is unconstitutional in its entirety. The court must take mandatory judicial notice of the minute orders connected to the June 27, 2002 hearing, issued by Commissioner Ettinger ( now Burgess) which are illegal in their multiplicity. The court must take mandatory judicial notice of California penal Code 182 and BPC 6128, 6067 and 6068. in reference to the gross misrepresentation of fact by attorney HORSPOOL, done in collusion with Melodie Scott. 47.Herein Horspool misstates the law. The statute of limitations starts running with discovery of the crime. I had no access to the Confidential Bank and Brokerage Statements prior to them being sent to me in April and May of this year. The clock starts ticking upon discovery of crime, not upon the commission in this issue. II. CONCLUSION The Court must take mandatory judicial notice of the laws detailed within. I ask the Court to take judicial notice of the Judicial Canons of the State of California, specifically Canon 3 D (2) which states: Whenever a judge has personal knowledge that a lawyer has violated any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge shall take appropriate corrective action. I am requesting the court to remand attorney J. David Horspool, State Bar number 98587, into custody at this time for the crimes committed against Petitioner, detailed and substantiated herein. He is clearly a menace to society and a disgrace to his profession: Signed this 30th day of September, 2009 ________________________________________ Janet C. Phelan Briancon, France