See also Part 1 of this story.
Also see Judge Richard G. Cline.
May 24, 2012
Roland Achtel, Esquire
Dear Mr. Achtel:
It would appear that you have incorrectly remembered what happened at Silvia's deposition [regarding the David L. Bedolla case].
I never said a word to you about the handling of the deposition transcript, nor did I discuss it with the court reporter. I do remember looking up at you in surprise when you said that no copy of the deposition would be mailed to the deponent for review.
You suddenly said you wanted to go off the record. The reporter immediately stopped recording, without getting Silvia's agreement to go off the record.
It should be noted that all day long you had unilaterally decided when the court reporter would go off the record, without asking for Silvia's approval. Early in the day I briefly discussed the issue with you, and you claimed to have no knowledge of any rule requiring that both parties agree in order for the reporter to go off record.
When you decided to go off record so you could discuss the handling of the transcript with the reporter, Silvia asked the reporter to go back on the record. The court reporter said to her, "I need to talk to him, and I can't record when I'm talking to him." Then you and the court reporter had a discussion off the record. The gist of your discussion was that the deponent would have to go to the reporter's office instead of your office to read and sign her deposition...
Then you went back on the record and said the transcript would be handled according to code...Shortly after, you stood up and said the deposition was over and you walked out with Alejandra...
I asked the court reporter why she didn't get Silvia's agreement to go off the record. "I never interfere," she said. I said that she should get the approval of both parties before going off the record. She repeated that she never did that. I assume she meant that she never did that when the deponent was in pro per. I asked her for her name and said I wanted to report her to the court reporters' licensing agency. She gave me her business card.
Then you came back in and ordered me to leave. I left within ten seconds. I did not say another word to the court reporter, and I didn't say anything at all to you.
Sincerely,
Maura Larkins
Showing posts with label . Achtel (Roland Achtel). Show all posts
Showing posts with label . Achtel (Roland Achtel). Show all posts
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Judge Richard Cline opposes putting court documents online, then orders court records destroyed rather than turning them over to party
See all posts re Judge Richard Cline.
This is one of the documents that Judge Cline doesn't want online (see Courthouse News story below).
If I didn't know better, I'd say that Judge Cline is trying to conceal his own actions as a judge in San Diego North County Superior Court
A petitioner in the David L. Bedolla case received notice from the court that her case records would be destroyed if she didn't request that the probate department turn them over to her. She filed an ex parte request to pick up the documents.
On May 22, 2012 Judge Richard Cline refused to allow her to have the documents, ordering them to be destroyed instead.
Interestingly, Judge Cline has told Courthouse News (see next story) that he no longer uses the court's new IT system to post documents online. Why is Judge Cline so opposed to allowing the public, and even the parties in a case, to have access to case documents?
Perhaps he wants to conceal some of his own orders.
On May 24, 2012, in the case mentioned above, he supported the court clerk's violation of law when she refused to file documents. Judge Cline has made it clear that he wants to help Roland Achtel win his case.
The above events put the following story in perspective: it appears Judge Cline doesn't like the public--or in pro per parties--to have access to court records.
Trial Judges Fire Back After Justice's Email Defending $1.9 Billion IT System for Courts
By MARIA DINZEO
Courthouse News (CN)
February 14, 2011
Trial judges around California are firing back after an appellate justice sent out an email saying trial court judges "uniformly and enthusiastically" support a controversial $1.9 billion IT system. The email was sent just before the release of a blistering state audit that suggested administrators had hid the true cost of the system and failed to make sure it was necessary before plunging ahead.
Mounting dissatisfaction with the massive IT project, where the current version is called CCMS V-3, prompted state administrators to form a set of "oversight" committees two weeks ago. In the first memo coming out of those committees, Justice Terence Bruiniers said, "The judges who actually use CCMS uniformly, and enthusiastically support CCMS."
That statement brought a rapid rebuttal from judges in San Diego, where the system has been put in place.
"I dispute the contention that CCMSV3 works," wrote San Diego Superior Court Judge Richard Cline in a response to Bruiniers.
Cline said in an interview that he no longer uses the system, but did use it during his ten-year tenure as a probate judge. "It takes many more steps to do the same job," Cline said, noting that one staff research attorney in probate had reported that it took 42 steps just to post her work online through the system...
If I didn't know better, I'd say that Judge Cline is trying to conceal his own actions as a judge in San Diego North County Superior Court
A petitioner in the David L. Bedolla case received notice from the court that her case records would be destroyed if she didn't request that the probate department turn them over to her. She filed an ex parte request to pick up the documents.
On May 22, 2012 Judge Richard Cline refused to allow her to have the documents, ordering them to be destroyed instead.
Interestingly, Judge Cline has told Courthouse News (see next story) that he no longer uses the court's new IT system to post documents online. Why is Judge Cline so opposed to allowing the public, and even the parties in a case, to have access to case documents?
Perhaps he wants to conceal some of his own orders.
On May 24, 2012, in the case mentioned above, he supported the court clerk's violation of law when she refused to file documents. Judge Cline has made it clear that he wants to help Roland Achtel win his case.
The above events put the following story in perspective: it appears Judge Cline doesn't like the public--or in pro per parties--to have access to court records.
Trial Judges Fire Back After Justice's Email Defending $1.9 Billion IT System for Courts
By MARIA DINZEO
Courthouse News (CN)
February 14, 2011
Trial judges around California are firing back after an appellate justice sent out an email saying trial court judges "uniformly and enthusiastically" support a controversial $1.9 billion IT system. The email was sent just before the release of a blistering state audit that suggested administrators had hid the true cost of the system and failed to make sure it was necessary before plunging ahead.
Mounting dissatisfaction with the massive IT project, where the current version is called CCMS V-3, prompted state administrators to form a set of "oversight" committees two weeks ago. In the first memo coming out of those committees, Justice Terence Bruiniers said, "The judges who actually use CCMS uniformly, and enthusiastically support CCMS."
That statement brought a rapid rebuttal from judges in San Diego, where the system has been put in place.
"I dispute the contention that CCMSV3 works," wrote San Diego Superior Court Judge Richard Cline in a response to Bruiniers.
Cline said in an interview that he no longer uses the system, but did use it during his ten-year tenure as a probate judge. "It takes many more steps to do the same job," Cline said, noting that one staff research attorney in probate had reported that it took 42 steps just to post her work online through the system...
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Part 1: Should attorney Roland Achtel be disqualified from this San Diego Superior Court case?
This blog has long been concerned about the fact that our legal system is often used to keep wrongdoing in schools hidden from the public, and to protect the wrongdoers. The following case is not about a public entity lawyer, but tax dollars are used to conduct cases like this.
The Bar Association seems to be happy with the current arrangement. After all, both plaintiff lawyers who represent the citizens who have been wrongly damaged, as well as the public entity lawyers who defend public officials, reap huge financial benefits from the system. Does it do any good to complain to the California Bar Association about lawyers who use unethical tactics? I doubt it. The Bar Association has officially expressed the opinion that public entity attorneys should represent the interests of public officials, not the public.
Roland Achtel
The following case, featuring attorney Roland Achtel, was discussed HERE. A motion to disqualify Judge Richard Cline was also filed.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL CONSEL/INTAKE, STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
1149 SOUTH HILL STREET, LOST ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015-2299
Name of Attorney:
Attorney Roland Achtel State Bar No. 215031
Other Attorneys
Olga Alvarez State Bar No. 222557
Jenny K. Goodman State Bar. No 177828
Jennifer W Chang State Bar No. 259643
Law Firm:
Sullivan Hill Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel
550 W "C" St Ste 1500 San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 233-4100 Fax Number: (619) 231-4372
e-mail: achtel@sullivanhill.com
Location of Court:. Superior Court of California San Diego North County Dept. NC-2
Dates of Incident:. March 1, 2012 And For The Past One And a Half Years
Name of Case:. In Re David L. Bedolla Living Trust
Case No.: 37-2010-00150345-PR-TR-NC
INTRODUCTION
This Complaint is not filed with the intent to ask the Office of The Chief Trial Counsel for legal advice; to correct errors, rulings, decision, or to issue an order in the case.
This Complaint if filed because we believed attorneys Roland Achtel, Olga Alvarez, Jenny Goodman, and Jennifer Chang engaged in an egregious pattern of misconduct that infringed the constitutional and statutory rights of our father their former client and our rights as petitioners in the above named action. These said acts by attorney Achtel and the above named attorneys were not isolated; rather, they reflected a disturbing and persistent pattern of conduct that is completely at odds with the standard of conduct expected of licensed attorneys in the State of California.
The above named attorneys, violated the American Bar Association rules of professional conduct; violations under Business and Professions Code; violations under California Rules of Professional Conduct; California Civil Rules of Procedure; Local Court rules; codes of conduct and ethics that are required guidelines for Members of the American Bar Association.
The above named attorneys actions were negligent, in bad faith, and violated public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary process. The Board of Governors has the power to discipline members as provided by law for a willful breach of any of these rules.
The exhibits attached to this complaint will support our Complaint and the facts stated in this complaint as true and correct as to the event and proceedings.
HISTORY AND EVENTS THAT LEAD TO THIS COMPLAINT
In the instant, this is a Probate/Civil case about our father who is now deceased. Our father who had been married to our mother for over 58-years before he passed away. Our father and mother had nine biological children. There were no other marriages and no other children.
Our father was emotionally and financially abused, neglected, denied medical care, and died an early horrific death. He was dehydrated, had multiple bed sores, and was isolated by our youngest sister Alejandra and our brother who is now dismissed from the complaint. Alejandra and our brother exploited their relationship with our father, and through verbal threats and abuse, manipulation, fraud and undue influence bullied our father to gift my brother and Alejandra the properties he jointly owned with his wife Maria, without Maria's knowledge or consent.
Our father was diagnosed on May 14, 2007 with terminal cance. Alejandra the Respondent did not inform any of the family members of our father's terminal diagnosis including our father and mother.
Instead By May 25, 2007 Respondent Alejandra had taken our father to the Law Office of Roland Achtel to draft a living trust under the name of David L. Bedolla Living Trust. No one knew that our father was terminal or that Respondent Alejandra Bedolla had taken our father to draft a living trust.
On May 25, 2007 Respondent Alejandra wrote a check to the Achtel Law Firm APC; check number 548 from the Bank of America Bank account of David L. Bedolla and Trinidad V. Bedolla for an amount of $ 1,200.00 signed with the name of David L. Bedolla. Alejandra Bedolla send a cashier's check from her San Diego Credit Union Account to pay for the trust.
Respondent Alejandra (a). drove David L. Bedolla to the law office of Achetel Law APC, (b). wrote the checks equal to $ 2, 400 from David L. Bedolla and his wife Maria's Bank of America checking account. (c). Alejandra made herself the, "Successor Trustee" of David Bedolla L. Living Trust. Giving herself, (d). "Financial Power," (e). "Power of Attorney" and sole decision making of David L. Bedolla "Power of health and directive (f) Conservator and (g). the, "sole beneficiary of the so-called David L. Bedolla Living Trust."
Based on attorney records Achtel Law Firm APC, staff member RHA wrote: under description as a flat fee for preparation of a living trust; certificate of trust, power of attorneys, designation of conservator (s); pour-over will (s); health care directive(s); one quit claim deed; general assignment of personal property and other ancillary living trust documents. The total charges were $ 2, 400.00 from David L. Bedolla and Maria V. Bedolla Bank of America Account balance of $ 1,200.00.
Our father died on February 4, 2010, a few months later our mother was contacted by the San Diego Assessors/Recorders Office about the name change of her home property her main residence in Cardiff CA the home value at that time was $650.000. The home our mother jointly owned with our father and marital community property. This is when we found out that our youngest sister Alejandra had taken our father to the law office of Roland Achtel and caused a living trust to be transcribed. Whereby Alejandra would be the sole beneficiary of our father's marital community property estate.
We filed a Petition in Superior Court of California San Diego North County Division [July 15, 2010] in the Probate department to have the David. L. Bedolla Living Trust nullified and have the property returned to the Bedolla estate. Alejandra Bedolla being the Respondent in the Probate Petition.
The David L. Bedolla Living Trust was fraud and flawed, in many ways. The trust gifts community property belonging to our mother [her main residence/ the Bedolla estate] to Alejandra Bedolla.
• Alejandra made herself the "Successor Trustee" of David Bedolla L. Living Trust Giving herself, (d). "Financial Power," (e). "Power of Attorney" and sole decision making of David L. Bedolla "Power of health and directive (f) Conservatorship and (g). the, "sole beneficiary of the so-called David L. Bedolla estate."
• Though our father presumably paid for a conservatorship, none was established.
• Our mother did not quit claim deed the property to the trust.
• The Living Trust is a couple of dozen pages long (on or about 30-plus) written only in English.
• Our father did not speak read or write English and only had a third grade education.
• A declaration of attorney Olga Alvarez states that she personally translated the trust to our father. Yet our father never saw the trust until the day he signed it. On the day he signed the trust our father was in the hospital gravely ill from En Vibrio Cholera and under over twenty one strong medications.
• All trust communication, email, mail, calls, faxes, translations with the Achtel law firm were made by Alejandra Bedolla not our father. All and other means of communication was conducted between these above named attorneys and Alejandra Bedolla and not our father David L. Bedolla.
Respondent Alejandra Bedolla is being represented by attorney Roland Achtel and Olga alvarez from the onset of this present action. Attorney Achtel and attorney Olga Alvarez joined the law firm of Sullivan Hill Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel prior to representing Alejandra Bedolla.
Olga Alvarez
Blogger note: Sullivan Hill attorneys Roland Achtel and Olga Alvarez were named San Diego Top Attorney Semi-Finalists for The San Diego Daily Transcript’s 2011 Top Attorneys. Achtel and Alvarez were recognized in the Estate Planning/Probate & Trust category.
Further Attorney Roland Achtel has brought in two additional attorneys into the litigation Attorney Jenny K. Goodman and Jennifer Chang. We the Petitioners in the above named action are representing ourselves.
Continued HERE.
Jennifer Chang
came to Sullivan Hill in Jan. 2011. Previously, she was an attorney at Sempra Energy and Analyst at DaimlerChrysler. Education: University of San Diego School of Law and Duke University
Sullivan Hill attorney Jenny K. Goodman has experience defending professionals, including attorneys, real estate professionals and stockbrokers, for malpractice.
The Bar Association seems to be happy with the current arrangement. After all, both plaintiff lawyers who represent the citizens who have been wrongly damaged, as well as the public entity lawyers who defend public officials, reap huge financial benefits from the system. Does it do any good to complain to the California Bar Association about lawyers who use unethical tactics? I doubt it. The Bar Association has officially expressed the opinion that public entity attorneys should represent the interests of public officials, not the public.
Roland Achtel
The following case, featuring attorney Roland Achtel, was discussed HERE. A motion to disqualify Judge Richard Cline was also filed.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL CONSEL/INTAKE, STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
1149 SOUTH HILL STREET, LOST ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015-2299
Name of Attorney:
Attorney Roland Achtel State Bar No. 215031
Other Attorneys
Olga Alvarez State Bar No. 222557
Jenny K. Goodman State Bar. No 177828
Jennifer W Chang State Bar No. 259643
Law Firm:
Sullivan Hill Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel
550 W "C" St Ste 1500 San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 233-4100 Fax Number: (619) 231-4372
e-mail: achtel@sullivanhill.com
Location of Court:. Superior Court of California San Diego North County Dept. NC-2
Dates of Incident:. March 1, 2012 And For The Past One And a Half Years
Name of Case:. In Re David L. Bedolla Living Trust
Case No.: 37-2010-00150345-PR-TR-NC
INTRODUCTION
This Complaint is not filed with the intent to ask the Office of The Chief Trial Counsel for legal advice; to correct errors, rulings, decision, or to issue an order in the case.
This Complaint if filed because we believed attorneys Roland Achtel, Olga Alvarez, Jenny Goodman, and Jennifer Chang engaged in an egregious pattern of misconduct that infringed the constitutional and statutory rights of our father their former client and our rights as petitioners in the above named action. These said acts by attorney Achtel and the above named attorneys were not isolated; rather, they reflected a disturbing and persistent pattern of conduct that is completely at odds with the standard of conduct expected of licensed attorneys in the State of California.
The above named attorneys, violated the American Bar Association rules of professional conduct; violations under Business and Professions Code; violations under California Rules of Professional Conduct; California Civil Rules of Procedure; Local Court rules; codes of conduct and ethics that are required guidelines for Members of the American Bar Association.
The above named attorneys actions were negligent, in bad faith, and violated public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary process. The Board of Governors has the power to discipline members as provided by law for a willful breach of any of these rules.
The exhibits attached to this complaint will support our Complaint and the facts stated in this complaint as true and correct as to the event and proceedings.
HISTORY AND EVENTS THAT LEAD TO THIS COMPLAINT
In the instant, this is a Probate/Civil case about our father who is now deceased. Our father who had been married to our mother for over 58-years before he passed away. Our father and mother had nine biological children. There were no other marriages and no other children.
Our father was emotionally and financially abused, neglected, denied medical care, and died an early horrific death. He was dehydrated, had multiple bed sores, and was isolated by our youngest sister Alejandra and our brother who is now dismissed from the complaint. Alejandra and our brother exploited their relationship with our father, and through verbal threats and abuse, manipulation, fraud and undue influence bullied our father to gift my brother and Alejandra the properties he jointly owned with his wife Maria, without Maria's knowledge or consent.
Our father was diagnosed on May 14, 2007 with terminal cance. Alejandra the Respondent did not inform any of the family members of our father's terminal diagnosis including our father and mother.
Instead By May 25, 2007 Respondent Alejandra had taken our father to the Law Office of Roland Achtel to draft a living trust under the name of David L. Bedolla Living Trust. No one knew that our father was terminal or that Respondent Alejandra Bedolla had taken our father to draft a living trust.
On May 25, 2007 Respondent Alejandra wrote a check to the Achtel Law Firm APC; check number 548 from the Bank of America Bank account of David L. Bedolla and Trinidad V. Bedolla for an amount of $ 1,200.00 signed with the name of David L. Bedolla. Alejandra Bedolla send a cashier's check from her San Diego Credit Union Account to pay for the trust.
Respondent Alejandra (a). drove David L. Bedolla to the law office of Achetel Law APC, (b). wrote the checks equal to $ 2, 400 from David L. Bedolla and his wife Maria's Bank of America checking account. (c). Alejandra made herself the, "Successor Trustee" of David Bedolla L. Living Trust. Giving herself, (d). "Financial Power," (e). "Power of Attorney" and sole decision making of David L. Bedolla "Power of health and directive (f) Conservator and (g). the, "sole beneficiary of the so-called David L. Bedolla Living Trust."
Based on attorney records Achtel Law Firm APC, staff member RHA wrote: under description as a flat fee for preparation of a living trust; certificate of trust, power of attorneys, designation of conservator (s); pour-over will (s); health care directive(s); one quit claim deed; general assignment of personal property and other ancillary living trust documents. The total charges were $ 2, 400.00 from David L. Bedolla and Maria V. Bedolla Bank of America Account balance of $ 1,200.00.
Our father died on February 4, 2010, a few months later our mother was contacted by the San Diego Assessors/Recorders Office about the name change of her home property her main residence in Cardiff CA the home value at that time was $650.000. The home our mother jointly owned with our father and marital community property. This is when we found out that our youngest sister Alejandra had taken our father to the law office of Roland Achtel and caused a living trust to be transcribed. Whereby Alejandra would be the sole beneficiary of our father's marital community property estate.
We filed a Petition in Superior Court of California San Diego North County Division [July 15, 2010] in the Probate department to have the David. L. Bedolla Living Trust nullified and have the property returned to the Bedolla estate. Alejandra Bedolla being the Respondent in the Probate Petition.
The David L. Bedolla Living Trust was fraud and flawed, in many ways. The trust gifts community property belonging to our mother [her main residence/ the Bedolla estate] to Alejandra Bedolla.
• Alejandra made herself the "Successor Trustee" of David Bedolla L. Living Trust Giving herself, (d). "Financial Power," (e). "Power of Attorney" and sole decision making of David L. Bedolla "Power of health and directive (f) Conservatorship and (g). the, "sole beneficiary of the so-called David L. Bedolla estate."
• Though our father presumably paid for a conservatorship, none was established.
• Our mother did not quit claim deed the property to the trust.
• The Living Trust is a couple of dozen pages long (on or about 30-plus) written only in English.
• Our father did not speak read or write English and only had a third grade education.
• A declaration of attorney Olga Alvarez states that she personally translated the trust to our father. Yet our father never saw the trust until the day he signed it. On the day he signed the trust our father was in the hospital gravely ill from En Vibrio Cholera and under over twenty one strong medications.
• All trust communication, email, mail, calls, faxes, translations with the Achtel law firm were made by Alejandra Bedolla not our father. All and other means of communication was conducted between these above named attorneys and Alejandra Bedolla and not our father David L. Bedolla.
Respondent Alejandra Bedolla is being represented by attorney Roland Achtel and Olga alvarez from the onset of this present action. Attorney Achtel and attorney Olga Alvarez joined the law firm of Sullivan Hill Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel prior to representing Alejandra Bedolla.
Blogger note: Sullivan Hill attorneys Roland Achtel and Olga Alvarez were named San Diego Top Attorney Semi-Finalists for The San Diego Daily Transcript’s 2011 Top Attorneys. Achtel and Alvarez were recognized in the Estate Planning/Probate & Trust category.
Further Attorney Roland Achtel has brought in two additional attorneys into the litigation Attorney Jenny K. Goodman and Jennifer Chang. We the Petitioners in the above named action are representing ourselves.
Continued HERE.
came to Sullivan Hill in Jan. 2011. Previously, she was an attorney at Sempra Energy and Analyst at DaimlerChrysler. Education: University of San Diego School of Law and Duke University
Sullivan Hill attorney Jenny K. Goodman has experience defending professionals, including attorneys, real estate professionals and stockbrokers, for malpractice.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
More bizarre antics from Tri-City Hospital: refusing to release medical records to heirs in elder abuse case
Tri-City also tried to keep records out of the hands of the San Diego Union-Tribune.
A bizarre cover-up seems to be proceeding in an elder abuse case in North County Superior Court in which a dying man who was taking approximately 20 medications signed away his property to one of his nine children. Another of his children is suing to have the property returned to the man's surviving wife.
Tri-City Hospital apparently wants to cover up its actions in the case, in which Tri-City Hospital and the daughter who arranged the transfer of property concealed from other siblings the fact that the father had terminal cancer.
Tri-City offers three objection to the subpoena for the records. the first and second reasons for not providing the records are standard.
The third reason however reads:
"Third, the subpoena is unduly burdensome or oppressive, since deponent is not in possession of the records sought..."
Tri-City is claiming that it does not have the patient's medical records!
The daughter who obtained the property is represented by attorney Roland Achtel.
See entire pleading filed by Nicole Wells on behalf of Tri-City Medical Center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)