Judge Richard Cline leaves problems behind in San Diego probate court

Judge Richard G. Cline










See case documents HERE.

SHOULD ATTORNEYS THAT COMMIT FIDUCIARY ABUSE AND PERJURY BE ABOVE THE LAW?
Jennifer Grant
January 19, 2013

In July 2011 a petition was filed to remove attorney Rusty Grant (no relation to Jennifer Grant) as trustee from the Schwichtenberg Family Revocable Trust. Reasons included expenditures against trust terms, incuding penalties for Rusty's failure to pay property taxes on time, failure to follow trust terms, illegitimate takeover of two subsections of the trust which had become irrevocable prior to the amendment which made Rusty trustee of the other subsection, and severe discrimination against the trustor's daughter Jennifer who had served as her mom's personal assistant and subsequently cared for her during her long battle with breast cancer.

Rusty Grant and Constance Larsen (Rusty’s own attorney, friend and officemate) had served as co-vice-presidents of the North County Bar with the current president back in 2006. Judge Cline made the majority of the decisions while the case was in Vista (when Vista court still had a probate division), including one in violation of federal and state constitutional law. Judge Cline had long standing bar ties with Richard MacGurn, the attorney of Jennifer's disgruntled brother.. Additionally, Rusty was a pro-tem judge in Vista.

In September 2012, with the closure of Vista's probate division, the case was moved to San Diego's Central division where it was inherited by Judge Jeffery Bostwick. Judge Bostwick is an ethical and professional judge. However, most likely due to the huge number of Vista cases dumped on him and the slow wheels of the justice system, he failed to grasp the urgency of the matter before him. He left Rusty Grant and Constance Larsen to continue their reign of fiduciary abuse, mispenditure of trust funds and violations of law unchecked, despite Jennifer filing a motion to suspend the trustee until the court could hear the case. Judge Bostwick denied the motion because it was “not urgent”.

How exactly, if Jennifer prevails, is all the misspent money supposed to get reimbursed?

In the meantime, there is no money available to pay the ongoing expenses of the trust property, so it will likely be lost if there is no intervention before the case can go to trial. Since Constance Larsen has illegally denied Jennifer the right to be in the property, it sits neglected and further deteriorating.

When Jennifer sought help from the California state fiduciary abuse organization, she was told that they could not touch attorneys though it sounded like Constance Larsen and Rusty Grant had committed crimes. Was there any other category of fiduciary out of their jurisdiction? The answer was “no”. So basically, they were saying if you are an attorney in California, you can break the law with no repercussions.

Both attorneys were also reported to the State Bar. How much their own North County Bar connections may have weighed in is unknown. However the complaint was closed. Jennifer received a letter which basically stated that, while her complaint might have merit, that the Bar could not get involved because there was a civil case in court.

The county DA was contacted but said a police report must first be filed. Since Constance Larsen forbids Jennifer to be in the property left her, there is a pending issue with the police as to who has jurisdiction to take the report.

In the latest incident, Constance Larsen tried to create a circumstance of double jeopardy by filing an accounting petition which contained issues already under contest in the case's other three petitions.

See pleading: Objections to Accounting Petition

Judge Cline allowed Rusty to conduct the forensic accounting ahead of trial on the contested petition where the question of who should conduct the accounting was at issue. Constance Larsen was blatantly trying to press her luck twice to get rid of the Remove Trustee petition and get fees for herself and further ones for Rusty.

This was an attempt to violate Jennifer's constitutional right to due process (US constitutional 14th amendment and California Constitution Section I Article I) as it had been in the circumstance with Cline.

Fortunately Judge Bostwick listened to Jennifer's due process argument on the Accounting Petiton and thwarted Larsen by consolidating it with the three other pending petitions putting it on the same civil justice snail track. However, if one takes a look at the objections he asked Jennifer to file, one can get a small taste of what is being allowed to continue by the State Bar as well as an overburdened, inefficient justice system here in San Diego. To top it off, as can be seen from Jennifer's objections, and looking at the exhibits, Constance Larsen and Rusty Grant have made false statements, committing perjury, when they signed their petitons. The question remains, are attorneys above the law? If not, then how can they be held accountable and by whom?

(Case # 37-2011-00150239-PR-TR-NC)

Part 2--Should Roland Achtel be disqualified from this case: Silvia Peters deposition

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

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...

VISTA: Students given a false sense of justice in our courtrooms

Photo: Judge Richard G. Cline, attorney Kenneth Feinburg and Judge Ronald Styn in 2005



See all posts re Judge Richard Cline.

VISTA: Students get a taste of justice
August 03, 2011
By DEBORAH SULLIVAN BRENNAN
North County Times

Twenty-six middle school students got a taste of justice at the Vista Courthouse Tuesday through a program that introduces them to the legal system.

One student defended herself against charges of theft, and was ultimately led away in handcuffs for drug possession. Another student, her alleged accomplice, sat silent on the advice of his attorneys. The accuser was reprimanded by the judge for name-calling on the witness stand.

The gifted and talented students, whom their instructor, Gregg Primeaux, called "future leaders of the community," were role-playing a trial in the courtroom of Superior Court Judge Richard Cline, a co-founder of the civics curriculum, "On My Honor."

"I learned a lot about how the court works," said Miranda Colvin, 12, the seventh-grader from Aviara Oaks Middle School who played the defendant. "It was really fun because I got to put on handcuffs."

The program began in 1999 with a fourth-grade field trip to the courts, and expanded into a series of regionwide events, including "Youth in Court Day" and, more recently, the week-long summer symposium for gifted students. The programs are sponsored jointly by the San Diego Superior Court, the North County Bar Association, Cal State San Marcos, and local schools.

Cline said he developed the curriculum to supplement dwindling civics education, and counterbalance what he considers the poor depiction of judicial proceedings on television.

"It teaches students factual information about the (legal) process by participating in an active trial," Cline said. "And hopefully it teaches them respect for the law."

During the summer program, gifted students in grades 5-9 prepare a case with attorneys and judges, investigate case studies using technology labs, present legal arguments, debate complex issues, select jury members, explore rights and responsibilities as citizens, and take a tour of the court facilities.

"We wanted to bring a higher critical thinking opportunity for them during the summer, within the courts," Primeaux said, adding that the program aims to both cultivate legal literacy and inspire future legal professionals.

During the mock trial, a student, Emily, faced theft charges for allegedly stealing $200 of charitable donations from a teacher's desk during lunch hour. Fellow students testified that they suspected her of taking the cash, noting that they saw her in the classroom and watched her buy a new iPod.

However, they acknowledged they never saw her steal the money, and school administrators admitted that while they found the new iPod in her backpack, she told them she earned the money through odd jobs.

Throughout the mock trial, Cline offered judicial guidance on examining the evidence, and at one time reproached a witness, Colleen, for calling Emily a "liar and a loser" on the stand.

A dozen student jurors then weighed the testimony and declared Emily not guilty. In a final twist, however, Cline announced that a court search of Emily's backpack turned up a white, powdery substance found to be methamphetamine, and a student actor playing bailiff escorted her out of court in handcuffs...

[Maura Larkins comment: This seemed to be a real exercise in critical thinking--until that "final twist". Shame on the adults for pulling that parlor trick. The students were given the impression that in a typical case, defendants are wrongly found innocent. Obviously, the jury in the above exercise was right to find the girl innocent. Judge Cline would have done these students a service if he acknowledged that the outcome in the story below is more common in the US justice system. The idea that defendants bring methamphetmine to court in backpacks is silly, bordering on dishonest manipulation of children's minds. Judge Cline seems to want kids to believe that courts make mistakes when they find defendants not guilty.

A more typical situation can be seen in the following case, which, interestingly enough, involved a fifteen-year-old girl. (Perhaps Judge Cline should have included in his lesson an admonition not to make false allegations?) The defense attorney in the following case described our justice system to the innocent young man accused by the fifteen-year-old: "When you go into that courtroom the jury is going to see a big black teenager and you're automatically going to be assumed guilty."]



May 24, 2012
Onetime top Calif. football prospect exonerated after serving 5 years on rape charge
(CBS/AP)

A former high school football star whose dreams of a pro career were shattered by a rape conviction burst into tears Thursday as a judge threw out the charge that sent him to prison for more than five years.

Brian Banks, now 26, had pleaded no contest 10 years ago on the advice of his lawyer after a childhood friend falsely accused him of attacking her on their high school campus.

The district attorney offered Banks a deal -- plead guilty to rape and spend another 18 months in prison, or go to trial and face 41 years to life, CBS Los Angeles reports.

Banks said his defense attorney told him, "'When you go into that courtroom the jury is going to see a big black teenager and you're automatically going to be assumed guilty.' Those are her exact words."

In a strange turn of events, the woman, Wanetta Gibson, friended him on Facebook when he got out of prison.

In an initial meeting with him, she said she had lied; there had been no kidnap and no rape and she offered to help him clear his record, court records state.

But she refused to repeat the story to prosecutors because she feared she would have to return a $1.5 million payment from a civil suit brought by her mother against Long Beach schools.

During a second meeting that was secretly videotaped, she told Banks, "'I will go through with helping you but it's like at the same time all that money they gave us, I mean gave me, I don't want to have to pay it back,"' according to a defense investigator who was at the meeting.

It was uncertain Thursday whether Gibson will have to return the money.

Prosecutors also said they didn't immediately know if she might be prosecuted for making the false accusation when she was 15...

Banks said he had verbally agreed to attend USC on a four-year scholarship when he was arrested.

He still hopes to play professional football and has been working out regularly. His attorney Justin Brooks appealed to NFL teams to give him a chance.

Banks said outside court Thursday that he had lost all hope of proving his innocence until Gibson contacted him.

"It's been a struggle. But I'm unbroken and I'm still here today," the tall, muscular Banks said, tears flowing down his face.

He recalled being shocked and speechless on the day Gibson reached out to him after he had been released from prison, having served five years and two months...

In court, Deputy District Attorney Brentford Ferreira told Superior Court Judge Mark C. Kim that prosecutors agreed the case should be thrown out. Kim dismissed it immediately.

Banks had tried to win release while he was in prison, but Brooks, a law professor and head of the California Innocence Project at California Western School of Law in San Diego, said he could not have been exonerated without the woman coming forward and recanting her story.

Brooks said it was the first case he had ever taken in which the defendant had already served his time and had been free for a number of years.

Banks remained on probation, however, and was still wearing his electronic monitoring bracelet at Thursday's hearing. His lawyer said the first thing the two planned to do was report to probation officials and have it removed.

"The charges are dismissed now," Brooks said. "It's as if it didn't happen. ... It was the shortest, greatest proceeding I've ever been part of."

Banks had been arrested after Gibson said he met her in a school hallway and urged her to come into an elevator with him. The two had been friends since middle school and were in the habit of making out in a school stairwell, according to court papers.

There were contradictions in Gibson's story, as she told some people the rape happened in the elevator and others that it happened in the stairwell.

A kidnapping enhancement was added to the case because of the allegation Banks had taken her to the stairwell. That enhancement also was thrown out Thursday.

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.