Monday, December 21, 2009

Letter From Janet Phelan to Judge Cahraman in Riverside Co.California

Janet Phelan

258 A Street #1-15

Ashland, OR 97520

December 18, 2009

Re: RIP 080974

To Riverside County Presiding Judge Cahraman:

This letter will expand upon my letter of December 2, 2009. I request that you respond within five days of receipt, as your position as Presiding Judge of Riverside County mandates your administrative oversight of illegal, malicious and corrupt acts by the judges in that court.

I am in receipt of your recent letter, in which you state that I am liberally accusing judges of corruption. You furthermore state that you can see there is no basis to my allegations.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the case at hand, RIP 080974. Therefore, this document will serve to alert you to the degree of judicial misconduct attached to this case. All the documents mentioned herein are on file with the court, but to alleviate you of the burden of research I will provide them herein.

  1. On June 27, 2002, Commissioner Joan Burgess presided over a hearing on a TRO against me. In the course of the hearing, she gave certain orders, which are revealed in the minute order attached (Ex 1). J. David Horspool produced the Order after hearing, actually produced TWO orders after hearing, and added a stipulation which essentially gagged me from discussing the conservatorship and RO proceedings with my mother, Amalie Phelan, the conservatee (Ex2). While the order after hearing on file with the court mentions this gag, the order after hearing which I was served with does not. Had I not found out about the discrepancy and modified my speech with my mother, I could have been jailed for contempt of court, and never known that I was so gagged.

  1. On August 1, 2002, the Restraining Order came to hearing in Judge Stephen Cunnison’s courtroom. Cunnison signed the RO into permanence without ever calling the matter to hearing and without ever allowing me to face my accusers. This is revealed by Cunnison’s own minute order (Ex 3), in which no one is listed as being present in the courtroom and also by the notarized letter from Jack Smith (Ex 4). I had obviously been in court all morning—evidenced by the minute order for the previous hearing, which was on the permanent conservatorship (Ex 5). Cunnison therefore violated my due process, which is both a statutory and Constitutional violation.

  1. And on October 8, 2002, Stephen Cunnison signed a second Restraining Order against me, (Ex 6) blocking me from contacting my mother’s physician, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligent (sic) Agency, the local Police Department, the Adult Protective Services located in the County where my mother resided, the American Medical Association and any and all licensing agencies for care facilities. In other words, I was disallowed to contact ANY agency which could conceivably help my mother. The restraining order stated that I was not to “make false reports” to these agencies. The fact is that none of my reports have ever been determined to be false. When trying to contact the Temecula PD later in 2002 concerning a bona fide identity theft issue, I was informed by Detective Winker that I was “restrained” from contacting him, even though the report was not about Amalie Phelan. With one flourish of his pen, Stephen Cunnison therefore struck down all the conventional legal protections offered a citizen of the United States of America, leaving both me and my mother completely unprotected should further crimes be committed against us.

  1. Burgess (formerly named Joan Ettinger) again issued a void order on April 30, 2008, when she overrode my objection that attorney Horspool not be granted permission to go into the Trust and retrieve his court costs, as these had previously been denied by Judge Lefkowitz in Santa Monica Superior Court (Ex 7). The issue involved a Restraining Order motion I had brought against attorney J. David Horspool in Los Angeles County. Commissioner Burgess does not have the authority to override a decision made by a Judge in a different county on a case never brought before Commissioner Burgess. This constitutes a violation of article 6 of the California State Constitution.

  1. By failing to act on my Request for a Continuance, Commissioner McCoy violated the stipulation that a Judge has a duty to act. I refer you to the case report as Ex 8 to see where he ordered the Request into the file on August 5th, 2009 and refused to act.

  1. Judge Tranbarger has now rejected moving papers, my Ex Parte application for a Reconsideration, without giving a reason or explanation. He is thus refusing me reasonable access to the court. I won’t insult your legal expertise by listing the enormous amounts of case and statutory law which forbid him from so doing. Tranbarger also vacated the sanctions hearing against Attorney Horspool and acted as defense counsel for same by supplying his “thinking” on why Horspool failed to appear, before Horspool gave any reason whatsoever, at least in open court, Judge Tranbarger has also ignored TWO MANDATORY Judicial Notices. The law does not provide him that luxury. The Request for Reconsideration (Ex 9) references, among other issues, a void order that Tranbarger issued on October 23, 2009 , in which he improperly delineates too short a time for my response to the Final Accounting. This is a violation of CCP and also the Hague treaty, both of which mandate extended response times for those residing out of the country. My sources tell me that Tranbarger has had ex parte conferences with the other side. While this would explain his disinterest in my rights, it certainly does not exonerate him from his judicial oaths, which he is now violating with increasing abandon. I have written him and asked him to recuse himself. I strongly suggest you urge him to do so.

I will look forward to your response to this letter within five days of receipt. Please be advised that you are bound by the Judicial Canons, including Canon 3, which state that (1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate authority.*

(2) 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.

In closing, I will note that you did remove both Commissioner McCoy and Judge Sharon Waters promptly from my case when I researched and reported on their property loans. I want to thank you for those actions, which were highly appropriate given the implications of their financial transactions. If I do not hear back from you within the mandated time period, I will consider you to have vacated the Judicial Canons and your oath of office and will proceed accordingly.


Janet C. Phelan

Toronto, ON

Cc: Commission on Judicial Performance

Jack Leonard, Los Angeles Times

Mark Gutglueck, San Bernardino County Sentinel

Cassie MacDuff, PE

Stacia Glenn, San Bernardino Sun


1 comment:

Anonymous said...