Pro se petition filed in the California Court of

Appeals for change of venue; government

corruption alleged
August 26, 11:06 AM LA Family Courts Examiner

The following is actual copy of a petition to the Court of Appeals of the State of California
alleging corruption, bias and criminal activity by the trial court in Los Angeles. (Only the
names of the Litigant and children have been changed to protect the identity of the
children.)

I. PETITION FOR REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE

DISTRICT

Petitioner in both the trial court and the Court of Appeal, respectfully petitions for review
vacating all orders made by the Superior Court of the State of California in case PD 016769
from July 12, 2007 to present; the change of venue from the County of Los Angeles to the
County of San Diego; the immediate change of custody of the minor child B.L. to the sole
legal and sole physical custody of the petitioner until the court in San Diego can make
further orders; the need for sanctions against the former minor’s counselors Kenneth P.
Sherman and E. Scott Clarke for acting in contempt of court by ignoring the interests of the
children they were ordered to protect; and the advisability of the Court requesting criminal
charges be filed against the persons who altered, falsified and removed documents from the
court file and the judicial officers and police officers who violated California Government
Code 6200 by turning a blind eye to the corruptions.

II. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Whether or not these proceedings were corrupt from the July 12, 2007 hearing forward.
2. Whether or not a fair trial can be had by the petitioner in the County of Los Angeles.
3. Whether or not the State’s policy of assuring that children have frequent and continuing
contact with both parents is or can be met under the prevailing orders.
4. Whether or not the minor’s counselors were complicit in a conspiracy to defraud the
petitioner of child support; whether or not the minor’s counselors were under obligation to
warn S.L. of the illegal surveillance of his private electronic communications when the
offending party informed them of the activity by email.
5. Whether or not the breach of integrity within the court warrants that criminal charges be
filed against the offending parties.

III. SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR REVIEW

The Commission on Judicial Performance received numerous complaints from several
litigants about Commissioner Alan H. Friedenthal which are still under investigation. (Some
complaints submitted by this petitioner that are still pending and many are included as
exhibits.) The petitioner submitted all the complaints to Presiding Judge Marjorie Steinberg
for her consideration before asking for review from the CJP. Judge Steinberg denied each
and every complaint except one, for which she took an undisclosed action.

A volume of corruptions in the case file was presented to Presiding Judge Steinberg, yet she
took no action against the parties responsible for the corruptions or the judicial officers who
turned a blind eye to them.

Court reporter Anita Alderson offered a severely altered record as a transcript of June 10,
2009 to the petitioner on August 5, 2009. When the petitioner pointed out some alterations
that could be proven, the court reporter amended the transcript, but retained some of the
alterations. It is impossible to win an appeal without an accurate record of the proceedings.
Nearly all contact between the petitioner and her son B.L. has been frustrated by the real
party in interest and his parents since July 2007; all visitation in person or telephonically
has been frustrated since March 21, 2009.

The San Diego Court made orders in regards to the older child S.L. that were completely
contrary to orders from the Los Angeles Court. Since that time, S.L. has recovered from
substance abuse and is getting “A”s in college. The savings to society by changing custody
to the petitioner are incalculable.

On May 6, 2009 the real party in interest’s sister, Crystel Strelioff was apprehended by the
U.S. Marshall at a house owned by one of the real party in interest’s girlfriends. Ms. Strelioff
is serving time for child abduction. The two children she abducted are institutionalized with
severe personality disorders. One child was kept out of school for three years while being
held by Ms. Strelioff.

The child B.L. had a 0.4 GPA while in the real party in interest’s custody. That is zero point
four, not a typo. B.L. is an intelligent child. The real party in interest and the Court are
destroying B.L.’s future.

Court Counsel Brett Bianco wrote an email to Commissioner Friedenthal saying the new
judge Elizabeth Feffer is “aware and understands”. Mr. Bianco audited the hearing on
August 5, 2009. Judge Feffer made rulings and procedural decisions on that day that are
inconsistent with rulings and procedural decisions in similar circumstances in her other
cases.
There is an email from the real party in interest’s mother, who had custody of B.L., to
former minor’s counsel Kenneth P. Sherman asking to change custody to the real party in
interest on paper only to defraud the petitioner of additional child support. Mr. Sherman did
not present this evidence of a conspiracy to defraud to the court or law enforcement. He did
ask to be relieved as counsel in July 2008 and was replaced by E. Scott Clarke. Mr. Clarke
did not present this evidence to commit fraud to the court or law enforcement and
requested the transfer of custody suggested in the email.

Mr. Sherman is not required to turn over the entire file on S.L., as requested by S.L.,
because Judge Feffer found it to be irrelevant.
It is reasonable to believe that the court sanctioned torture of the petitioner and the
petitioner’s child will continue if the venue is not changed from Los Angeles County.