You are on page 1of 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Alisa Spitzberg,Henya Spitzberg, and Lauren Spitzberg 7513 Fountain Ave #203 Los Angeles, CA 90046 323-378-5801 In Pro Per IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Alisa Spitzberg, Henya Spitzberg.Lauren Spitzberg

Case No. BC460899 The Honorable Richard Fruin MOTION TO RECUSE UNDER CCP 170.1

Plaintiffs,

vs.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Mathilde Notaro, Stephanie Willen, Reeta Piazza,John Gregozek, James Hoffman, and DOES 1-100

Defendants

Plaintifffs, Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg respectfully requests Judge Richard Fruin recuse himself under the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section ()170.1 (a)(6)(C): For any reason . . . A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. Defendant believes that any reasonable person aware of the facts and circumstances would believe that Judge Fruin is biased and prejudiced, and has ignored the law.

MOTION TO RECUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 - 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The standard for disqualification provided in Code Civ. Proc., 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(C), providing for disqualification for bias or prejudice where a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge is able to be impartial, is fundamentally an objective one. It represents a legislative judgment that,due to the sensitivity of the question and inherent difficulties of proof, as well as the importance of public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable person would entertain doubts concerning the judge's impartiality, disqualification is mandated. To insure that proceedings appear to the public to be impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of the objective person. This standard indicates that the decision is not based on the judge's personal view of his own impartiality, and also suggests that the litigants' necessarily partisan views do not provide the applicable frame of reference. Rather, the judge ought to consider how his participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street. (emphasis added) INTRODUCTION Judge Fruin has been assigned this case since May 5th 2011. Judge Fruin made statements on the record on April 25th 2012 that gave the plaintiffs hope that he had read the pleadings and had now ultimately understood the case before him. On August 29th 2012, much occurred in a hearing on defendant s Anti- Slapp that would cause any reasonable person to conclude that they cannot expect justice or fairness and that the many statements made by Judge Fruin on April 25th 2012 were either forgotten or discarded due to either a bias and prejudice that could not be overcome or that became insurmountable when seeing the part played by a Judge Maria Stratton. On arrival to the hearing Alisa Spitzberg was given an improper and incorrect chronology. Judge Fruin has somehow gleaned from pleadings by the defendant what seems to highlight a sequence of dates that the defendant wants Judge Fruin to see as a chronology when it fact it is a an inclusion of disputable documents that the defendant is using to bias the judge. What might promote a state of mind that will deny the plaintiffs long denied justice, is not clear, and no nefarious relationships or agendas are suspected or alleged. The plaintiffs request that a new judge be assigned that can afford them the fairness and impartially any American citizen is taught to expect from their judicial officers. In an earlier stage of this litigation, Judge Fruin was assigned to hear a Demurrer on Defendant Reeta Piazzas and Judge Fruin told Piazzas attorney, Give the pro per one more chance. In the course of this litigation Judge Fruin suggested that this was a soap opera and commented on the number of defendants and the number of allegations in a derogatory way. At some point Judge Fruin posed that it might be more Kafka than Soap Opera and the plaintiffs found this oddly reassuring. Judge Fruin has often commented on the length of the complaint and the number of defendants in ways that would appear critical and has not made it a secret that the plaintiffs paper were not read before arriving at ruling. It has become clear on several occasions that Judge Fruin does not want to read the plaintiffs papers and will make decisions that dismiss

MOTION TO RECUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 - 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

whole claims based on the false argument of the defendant.. Judge Fruin dismissed the whole claim against Notaro based on her papers alone. She alleged this was about a restraining order and after a year Judge Fruin did not note that this had nothing to do with a restraining order. Nevertheless,Judge Fruin was willing to reconsider and yet again on August 29th2012 the same issues seemed to be present . Much can most probably be due to time constraints and yet Judge Fruin seems able to make time to read papers filed by members of the bar, even when they are as transparently unethical and meritless as those filed by Notaros counsel. The length of the complaint or SAC is not extreme or unusual nor are the relatively small amount of defendants. If considering the facts and the evidence there should have been many more defendants . The city and county and the sixteen officers also present on November 4th 2009 are liable too but due to emotional and financial strain on the plaintiffs they have had to do what they can. A very similar action filed by the lawyers for the Duke Lacrosse players ran in excess of two hundred pages and contained many more defendants and many more causes of action. There are many cases of malicious criminal prosecution and police misconduct where the complaint is lengthier and many more defendants are named. In regards to defendant, Piazza: She clearly is liable for Malicious prosecution if the allegations were to be proven, and yet Judge Fruin dismissed all claims against her as well as the claims against a Kaushal Sharma, who is a criminal who falsifies reports for profit. The reasons for the dismissal do not appear fair or lawful considering the nature of the allegations and how they were pled. The matter was appealed regarding Piazza since it was unambiguous that she was liable. As for Sharma, the plaintiffs were told that he was immune but they do not believe that this is the case since he conspired with a malicious prosecution and caused grave damages. They find it impossible to believe that experts can come in and falsify reports wherein they knowingly claim innocent defendants are insane and must be forcibly medicated and not be held accountable in a court of law. The plaintiffs have since learned that Sharma is being investigated by the FBI and will be named in another law suit, and this has allowed them some measure of peace. Judge Fruin did reconsider and then take the matter of Piazza under submission but no ruling ever resulted and an appeal was taken due to the deadline. Judge Fruin would say things on the record on April 25thrd 2012 that would so convince Alisa and Lauren Spitzberg, who were present, that Judge Fruin finally had read their pleadings and would from then on be committed to ruling in ways that promoted justice. Judge Fruins comments on April 25th 2012, on the record, were such that the appeal against Piazza was abandoned since it would appear so clear that Judge Fruin would from that day forward seek to promote justice in his courtroom in regards to the plaintiffs suit . In light of that, Piazza was able to escape the liability that she should not have escaped. The comments in question that were made on the record on April 25thrd 2012 were:

MOTION TO RECUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 - 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1) Judge Fruin stated to all present that It is clear that a serious serious injustice occurred in this case. 2) Then Judge Fruin turned to Alisa and said, You have big big damages. Judge Fruins face then became red and he said to Alisa Spitzberg, You were jailed for thirty one days!: 3) Then, discussion turned to Judge Fruins concerns about how trial might progress with three pro per litigants and Alisa and Lauren tried to assure Judge Fruin that all the plaintiffs were capable of conducting themselves in a way that would not cause undue burden. 4) Then, Judge Fruin, questioned Lauren about her damages. 5) Then, Judge Fruin turned to Alisa Spitzberg and said, This is an important case , I see how important it is to you, but it is not just important to you but it is important to the system. 6) Then, Judge Fruin discussed how he would like his externs to be present for any forthcoming hearing as it was a case they could cut their teeth on. 7) Then there was discussion about how Amending the complaint would clarify for the court the damages sustained by Alisa versus those sustained by Lauren and Henya Spitzberg. The Demurrer was not sustained but was amended due to trying to assist the court. 8) Judge Fruin told the attorney representing defendant Notaro that if Notaro was malicious she very well may be liable. 9) The next day the attorney, for the Police officer defendants( who is always present in court when Notaro s case is set for hearing) wanted a trial continuance and Judge Fruin granted this to her. At one point Alisa said that the trial would fall on the date of her illegal incercaration and Judge Fruin said, Tell that to the jury. 10) Also on the same date as the ex parte to continue the trial Elizabeth Mitchell expressed that she needed a continuance for her summary judgment motion to be viable and Judge Fruin inquired as to what basis she could have for such a motion. This made sense since there is no such a basis considering the nature of the claims and how this was a matter that clearly had to be tried. The statements made by Judge Fruin were discussed with friends of the plaintiffs and several legal professionals all reasonable peple. All agreed that Judge Fruin appeared to finally have made the requisite effort to perhaps overcome the pro per bias that had been displayed before April 25th 2012. The statements of big big damages and that it was a case that was important for the system made it appear that Judge Fruin saw that the case surely had merit . Indeed it is a case that is important to the system and where huge damages were inflicted upon the plaintiffs. From April 25th 2012 till May 23rd 2012 much effort was made to amend the complaint in a way that would better delineate the damages suffered by each plaintiff as discussed on April 25th 2012. An amended complaint was filed on May 24th 2012. Nothing in the amended complaint should have led Notaros lawyer to file an Anti SLAPP motion other than the attempt to delay and

MOTION TO RECUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 - 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

harass. Yet, she would file such a motion and she would not make any threshold showing that any cause of action arose from protected activity. The controlling authorities when illegal activity is alleged were not even mentioned by Hart, and no attempt other than mere allegation as to some retaliation for a restraining order, can be seen by her pleadings or the declaration and the lone 2 meaningless exhibits she would attach. Nothing in the SAC or the moving papers should led Judge Fruin to allow discussion of the second prong immediately at the hearing Harts lawfirm just lost such a motion because it was shown that the Honorable Mary Strobel had found that Marty Singer had committed extortion as a matter of law and there was no need to advance to the second prong. An attorney letter was used as evidence but according to Gerbosi and Gaims even absent such evidence the Anti SLAPP was not the proper procedural motion and when illegal activity is alleged and is the gravamen of a suit the Anti SLAPP motion cannot be invoked . In support of this meritless Anti SLAPP motion, not one piece of evidence was presented this court and nothing above mere allegations that the suit was brought in retaliation for petitioning activity exists in her moving papers and in her strange and meaningless reply. According to law and logic, at the hearing on August 29th 2012, Notaros attorney should have been castigated and sanctioned for making absolutely no threshold showing that any cause of action arose from petitioning activity and relying on mere allegation and a declaration that did not contain one paragraph that wasnt pure hearsay and speculation. The second prong should not have been broached considering the moving papers filed by the defendant, Notaro, and the opposition and evidence filed by the plaintiffs. Instead at that hearing much occurred that was very concerning and seemed to have indicated that the plaintiffs could not expect the fairness and justice that they had anticipated considering what occurred in court on April 25th 2012. On arrival to court Alisa Spitzberg was met by a document that purported to be a tentative ruling but instead was a chronology that utterly disregarded the complaint or the facts or the opposition, declarations and exhibits filed by the plaintiffs. Much of it was wrong.The chronology seems to have been pieced together almost entirely from the improper requests for judicial notice filed by the unethical, Allison Hart. Those requests were so improper and the material so in dispute that it makes no sense that they should serve as any template. All the most pertinent allegations in regards to malicious prosecution and wrongdoing were omitted. On the record,in the hearing, it became clear that Judge Fruin had absent perhaps a declaration made by Bill Pierson, had not reviewed the opposition and the exhibits of the plaintiffs. Judge Fruin discussed that he read the transcripts of the restraining hearing order hearing and seemed to find that persuasive for the defendant when if regarding the allegations and the evidence it is only shows that Notaro not only lied to the police but perjured herself and that she suborned perjury. Very disturbingly, Judge Fruin wrote in the chronology that a Judge Maria Stratton signed all the search warrants. This is not remotely the case. Judge Maria Stratton did not sign one single

MOTION TO RECUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 - 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

search warrant in the underlying case. Then, Judge Fruin began to comment upon the illustrious career and reputation of Judge Maria Stratton.Frankly, Alisa Spitzberg was in too much shock to counter that Judge Maria Stratton followed no law and jailed her without bail and did very extreme transgressions of law and decency in the underlying case. Yes, this case was about the system and it is an important one and Judge Maria Stratton will be a witness called by the plaintiffs in order to substantiate their claims against Gregozek and Hoffman. It is alleged that she somehow found a way to justify jailing a defendant without charges and dissalowing bail due to Gregeozek and Hoffman presenting her with falsified reports to be found in the files of the mental health court. Such actions were a proximate cause of the malicious lies of Notaro and then the other defendants. Judge Strattons illustrious career is not relevant when considering the allegations. Rather than browbeat the defendants lawyer for bringing a transparently meritless Anti Slapp at this hearing and the Judge saying that there was no need to even get to the second prong, the hearing devolved into one where Alisa Spitzberg was forced to argue the admissibility of her evidence , how a transcript from 2008 was read, how esteemed is Judge Stratton etc. By law, absent a threshold showing that any cause of action arose from right to petition this kind of weighing of evidence should not have occurred. The hearing had to end at 4:30 and there was no time even for Alisa to request that Judge Fruin rule on the evidentiary objections filed. Since Judge Fruin did not seem aware of Lefervre vs Lefebvre or Gerbosi v Gaims it was hoped that once reading these recent decisions, that were mentioned many times in the plaintiffs opposition, there was still hope for justice. But, considering that Judge Maria Stratton will be a witness and that Judge Fruin is somehow convinced that she signed all the warrants and considering that no matter what evidence was produced, even when it wasnt yet called for, Judge Fruin seemed to be taking the defendants mere allegations at face value -- absent any evidence or showing of any kind. In light of these concerns, the plaintiffs request that rather than be forced to file motions to reconsider and appeals the matter be taken out of this court. Though it has been argued too in a reconsideration motion that the criminal prosecution involved the city attorney and misdemeanors , Judge Fruin, has again written that the district attorney was the one who filed the charges in his chronology. This is an important distinction because with felonies there is a preliminary hearing and with misdemeanors there is not. The allegations are that no oversight occurred and a plea was anticipated and that when that plea was not forthcoming many outrages occurred. If Judge Fruin is under the impression that these were felonies his assumption will be that there were safeguards and that probable cause might have existed, and this may very well influence any ruling he will make.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ALISA, HENYA, AND LAUREN SPITZBERGS MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE FRUIN

MOTION TO RECUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 - 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The facts and circumstances prompting the challenge must be evaluated as of the time the motion is brought and the evaluation of the challenge must not isolate facts or comments out of context. The challenge must be to the effect that the judge would not be able to be impartial toward a particular party. Flier v Superior Court (1994, 1st Dist) 23 Cal App 4th 165, 28 Cal Rptr 2d 383. Notaro and her attorney have repeatedly perpetuated frauds on the court and now seem to be benefitting from then yet again. "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed.,p. 512, 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final." It is void. " THE RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUDGE IS THE GROUNDS OF DUE PROCESS At this time Plaintiffs do not argue that the fact of Judge Fruins rulings disqualify him. They argue that particular statements, particular findings, and particular rulings of Judge Fruin reveal a biased and prejudiced mindset, and along with an ignoring of the law Judge Fruins biased and prejudiced mindset may be clearly discerned by any reasonable person who has knowledge of the facts, and the law. Any objective person can see the prejudice will be directed towards the defendant thus: In order to disqualify a judge, his/her prejudice must be against a party [Alisa, Henya,and Lauren Spitzberg] to the action; . . . Evans v Superior Court (1930) 107 CA 372, 290 P 662; Kreling v Superior Court (1944) 63 CA2d 353, 146 P2d 935. It is well stated in CCP 170.1 (a) (6) (C) a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. Bias or prejudice towards a lawyer [a pro per is acting as a lawyer] in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. The previous corresponding statute--Sec. 170, subdivision (a)(5)--which was repealed in 1984, had been construed to require bias in fact, with the enactment of Sec. 170.1, however, a party seeking to disqualify a California judge for cause was no longer required to prove that the judge was actually biased. The test to be applied in evaluating recusal and disqualification of judges was clearly stated many years ago in Berger v United States (1921) 255 U.S. 22: Does the [Declaration] of Prejudice [executed plaintiff] give fair support to the charge of a bent of mind that may prevent or impede impartiality of judgment (225 U.S.) In the case United Farm Workers of America v Superior Court (1985, 4th Dist) 170 Cal App 3d 97, 216 Cal Rptr 4.

MOTION TO RECUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 - 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The average person looking at this situation would see a bias by Judge Fruin toward the plaintiffs based on his repeated mention of him reading the unsupported fabricated and provable subordinated perjury by witnesses brought to the Restraining order hearing in May 28th 2008. Judge Fruin did not appear to read the allegations in the complaint and therefore did not appear to regard in the context that would comport with a finding that Notaro conclusively lied to the police and in her affidavit and to prosecutors, if he indeed found that the causes of action were based on petitioning activity. It appears from statements made on August 29th 2012, that he accepted the perjury and suborned perjury in that hearing as true , and allowed them to influence him in his pending ruling on the Anti- SLAPP motion. Any such ruling will be an injustice and it will not be in league with established law. Judge Fruin has appeared to have ignored the law of a void judgments, and that any reasonable person would believe that to be the case. He has appeared to improperly have seen to the subrogated perjury (PENAL CODE SECTION 118-131) of those present against Alisa Spitzberg at the restraining order hearing as evidence of any kind when deciding if the SAC is subject to an Anti-SLAPP. None of their fabricated and couched testimony was in the original record of trial in the underlying case. If in fact as stated the reading of such a transcript was influential in a decision on whether petitioning activity was shown there can obviously be no faith that Judge Fruin can be impartial, or discern fact if such proven lies appear to bias him at this late stage. JUDGE FRUIN AND VOID JUDGMENT It has been alleged and it is true that the restraining orders obtained by Notaro were void judgements. When faced with a void judgement a judge may only look at the judgment roll record; she may not retry the case and allow for any "new testimony, or witnesses, etc." Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861: For Judge Fruin to repeatedly refer to the transcript of the restraining order hearing that resulted in a void judgement and not regard the temporary order, the allegations, the investigator statements, the affidavit,and the police report will cause obvious injustice. "A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off..." People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448]. When a statute authorizes a prescribed procedure and the court acts contrary to the authority conferred, the court exceeds its jurisdiction. (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., (2004), 33 Cal.4th at p. 661.)

MOTION TO RECUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 - 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JUDGE MARIA STRATTON ILLEGALLY INCARCERATED ALISA SPITZBERG AS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEFENDANTS BAD FAITH ACTS. SHE DID NOT SIGN ONE SINGLE SEARCH WARRANT. By all evidence currently available, Judge Stratton was under the impression that Gregozek and Hoffman were telling her the truth and that Alisa Spitzberg needed to be punished in extreme ways i.e made out to look insane and jailed without bail or charges. The files in her court would indicate that a Kelly Boyer filed 17 charges of violation of a restraining order when in fact none were filed by Boyer and there were three in total and filed by a Henderson and Waxler. Judge Stratton was informed that the defense attorneys found Alisa Spitzberg competent and had no right to allow the competency scheme to proceed under her watch, according to law. When a judge does not follow the law, i.e., they are a trespasser of the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)

PRO PER PLEADINGS "Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers. Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."

It is held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (Puckett v. Cox 456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). And, Justice Blackin, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is not a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice." MISTAKES IN TENTATIVE CHRONOLOGY OBTAINED BY DISPUTED DOCUMENTS 1. Judge Fruin Writes that on 8/7 and no year Alisa Confronts Notaro and Stephanie Willen at Sunami caf The facts: Notaro and Willen would falsely allege that Alisa confronted them on 8/29/07 and that she pushed Notaro. Many statements would be made that would show they were

MOTION TO RECUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 - 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

lying and a witness would come forth to say they were lying both in an affidavit and to the public defender at trial. 2. Judge Fruin writes 4/7,9.29/08 Alisa Spitzberg goes(with her mother) to Improv and Largo at which Notaro is performing andt the manager asks Spitzberg to leave the club The facts: Alisa never went to any of these clubs to watch Notaro perform ( SAC ) and she never went with her mother to watch Notaro perform. Her mother only came on 4/29/08 to try to talk sense to Notaro( SAC) Willen would lie in court and be rewarded with a job and other gifts 3. 3.8/13/08 Judge Fruin Writes Alisa Spitzberg files civil suit against Notaro and dismisses suit on 11/21/08 The facts and allegations: In response to the filing of the civil suit Notaro invented a violation and due to the criminal charge being brought she was advised that she had to drop any civil matter . 4. Just Fruin writes: District Attorney files criminal complaint filed against Alisa Spitzberg for violation of Penal Code sections 273.6a, 653m and 273.6a the violations allegedly occurring on 7/14/08 RJN exhibit 18 The facts and what it says in any records:. One charge of 273.6 was filed on August 25th 2008 . When Alisa wouldnt plea when innocent more fake charges would be filed. Two charges would be added on March 23rd 2009 and then aquitted by the judge at trial. There is no RJN that says otherwise. 5. Notaro then won a SLAPP suit based on fraud on the court and alleged police activity that never occurred. More charges were added to Alisa Spitzberg as retaliation for Lauren Spitzberg brining suit against Notaro for defamation. 6. 1/13/09- Judge Fruin writes that Notaro merely reported her belief that Notaro sends false links and insists that she is Absolutely certain that such things are written by Alisa Spitzberg. 7. Judge Fruin writes: Judge Maria E Stratton issues a bench warrant when Alisa leaves a competency hearing The facts as presented in the complaint: Alisa was told to leave by a public defender Robin Ginsburg because a fraud was being perpetrated. There was to be no hearing on that date considering only one doctor had falsified a report. No legal bench warrant was issued and 18 officers wearing riot gear dont show up to arrest someone on a misdemeanor bench warrant. 8. Judge Fruin writes 11/4/09 Gregozek executes a warrant on plaintiffs residence and arrest Alisa. The facts: 18 officers come to terrorize the plaintiffs. Jeffrey Dunn, Gregozeks supervisor tells Alisa that he is arresting her for what she wrote on her blog( SAC) Plaintiffs are at a loss as to why Judge Fruin would construct such a chronology that omits too many pertinent dates to mention here and gets so many things wrong. Maria Stratton did not sign any search warrants. It is essential for any ruling to regard the four charges that were added on

MOTION TO RECUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 - 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

January 21st 2010 and how each charge was based on the malicious lies of Notaro. Those are the charges that are the most clear cut as to malicious prosecution. The appeals affirmed a void judgement and Alisa was jailed for the oral hearing . A psychiatrist evaluated Alisa on 11/6/09 and found her very competent and yet she was jailed and held without charges. The SAC lays it out and should have been referred to rather than improper and disputed requests for judicial notice filed by the defendant.

CONCLUSION Any reasonable person looking at the current bench in the defendants case would see bias and prejudice against the plaintiffs. As a result of this the law is not being followed and more injustice and waste will occur not only with defendant Notaro but with the Defendants Gregozek and Hoffman. Judge Fruin appears to esteem Judge Stratton and the plaintiffs will call her as a witness . They believe she behaved corruptly in the underlying case .Or in the alternative she was so lied to that she lost all sense and became incredibly biased and felt justified in breaking law after law in regards to competency law, Hippa laws, coercive confinement, and excessive bail etc. Therefore, the plaintiffs respectfully requests that Judge Fruin be disqualified under CCP 170.1(a)(6)(C) et seq. Defendant requests that the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, assign the plaintiffs case to another department within his court, or in the alternative ask the Judicial Counsel to assign an independent Judge to this case. The plaintiffs believe that Judge Fruin aims to promote justice but that his inherent( and somewhat understandable)bias against pro pers and possibly against defendants in a criminal case is allowing for the plaintiffs to have to be treated in ways that are unfair and that are causing them needless pain and frustration as they purse causes of action that in no way are based on protected petitioning activity . They are based on the crime of lying the police . In the best interest and for respect of the court this request for disqualification must be granted. The California legislature made reasonable decisions in these rules for disqualification and the rules must be followed. DECLARATION OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE AND IGNORING OF THE LAW

25 26 27 28

Alisa Spitzberg,Lauren Spitzberg, and Henya Spitzberg declare that we are residents in California and are plaintiffs matter and declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, and can and will testify to such in any court or hearing. Executed in the state of California, in the County of Los Angeles, California.

MOTION TO RECUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 - 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated this September 3rd 2012 ____________________________ Alisa Spitzberg

Henya Spitzberg

Lauren Spitzberg

MOTION TO RECUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 - 12

You might also like