ONE MAN’S OPINION--The coven of evil, which holds sway over the Los Angeles County Probate- Conservatorship court, is not limited to Judge Elizabeth Lippitt nor is it confined to Los Angeles County.
When families seek judicial intervention, they have no clue of the web of judicial abuse, deception and theft of the family’s assets that will soon ensnare them.
One typical scenario, which compels a family to seek judicial help, is an elderly family member is being held hostage while his/her assets are drained. The family does not foresee that the abuse of the hostage taker is about to be replaced by the abuse by the probate court. The various mechanisms employed by the court are limited only by the ingenuity of the judges, but certain patterns are often seen.
As explained previously Financial Rape: Business as Usual in LA County Probate Court, Judge Lippitt forces the elder person to mediation where the person is subjected to fraud, coercion and exhaustion. All the elder has to do to gain her freedom from the seemingly endless mediation is sign whatever documents the coven of evil shoves in front of her.
As Judge Paul Suzuki explained, all that matters is that she signed the settlement agreement. The Mozer v Augustine supports Judge Suzuki. It does not matter if the elder is comatose during the mediation, all that counts is that somehow the elder’s signature appears. How it got there is irrelevant and no amount of fraud, threats, lies, etc. may ever be introduced into court to show that the elder was financially raped. (Mozer cites: Evid. Code, § 1119 (a)-(c) mediation communications are confidential. “Sign this or never see you son again” – not admissible under Mozer)
How Judge Lippitt Champions Attorney Misconduct
As those who follow the Widow M’s saga realize, while under Judge Lippitt’s supervision, Attorney Audre Delahoussaye-Quantrell, the Widow M’s court appointed attorney, owes no duties to the Widow M. The Rules of Professional Responsibility which allegedly govern the ethical conduct of all attorneys have become propaganda tools to mislead the public into falsely believing attorneys place the client’s interests before the attorney’s personal and financial concerns.
Let’s Take a Look-See at Some of State Bar Propaganda
State Bar Rule 3-310. An attorney cannot represent a client when the attorney has “a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with another person or entity the member knows or reasonably should know would be affected substantially by resolution of the matter.”
Ha. Double Ha-Ha, Pshaw if you think that rule prevents CAC Delahoussaye from continuing her representation of the Widow M after admitting that she is forcing the widow to sell her property because CAC fears she will be sued if she follows the Widow M’s desire not to sell her property. CAC exact words were:
“If I request that the petition to approve it be waived, I believe that I am putting myself in a position to be sued for breach of contract and I am not willing to do that. If it's not approved, I can walk away and not have to be concerned about being sued for breach of contract.” CAC’s July 22, 2019 email [bold added]
How Should the Court and the State Bar React to Such a Written Admission?
“Lawyers owe every client an ethical obligation to represent the client free of competing interests or loyalties, including the lawyer’s own personal interests, that would materially impair the lawyer's representation of the client.” State Bar Ethics Opinion, 2019-197
In its propaganda campaign that attorneys owe duties of faithfulness to their client, the State Bar continues:
“The duty of loyalty owed to current clients "forbids any act that would interfere with the dedication of an attorney's 'entire energies to [the] client's interests . . . .'" Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 289 State Bar Opinion 2019-197
The propaganda continues with the State Bar’s writing:
“"Conflicts of interest broadly embrace all situations in which an attorney's loyalty to, or efforts on behalf of, a client are threatened by . . . his own interests."). The duty of loyalty is reflected in the California Rules of Professional Conduct, including rule 1.7, as well as by case law and common law.”
The Widow M demanded to know who would be suing CAC Delahoussaye if the CAC placed the Widow M’s financial well-being ahead of the CCA’s fear of being sued. No response. What misinformation does the State Bar have for the public about a client’s right to be kept in formed by his/her attorney?
“The fiduciary duty that attorneys owe to their clients includes a duty of communication. “[T]he dealings between practitioner and client frame a fiduciary relationship. The duty of a fiduciary embraces the obligation to render a full and fair disclosure to the beneficiary of all facts which materially affect his rights and interests.” Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971) 6 Cal.3d 176, 188-189 [98 Cal.Rptr. 837]. (referring to Rule 1.4)
How Do We Know That the State Bar Is Feeding Us Propaganda?
After Judge Lippitt sees the CAC’s conflict of interest admissions, Judge Lippitt affirms that Delahoussaye is The Widow M’s attorney and without notice fires the Widow M’s private attorney who brought CAC Delahoussaye’s misconduct to Judge Lippitt’s attention. Then Judge Lippitt and CAC engage in a cover-up where they withhold transcripts and orders from the Widow M so she has no idea what’s happening. CAC Delahoussaye claims that she doesn’t have to show her client documents like transcripts as the widow can rely on whatever the CAC says!
We know that the State Bar’s lofty words are propaganda from the fact that Judge Lippitt and CAC Delahoussaye would not be so openly brazen about trashing the law if these rules were genuine. Crooks know that when they operate under judicial immunity, the law does not apply to them. All that matters is that the financial rape of the Widow M continues. The State Bar’s and the Commission on Judicial Performance’s true function is to protect the abusers.
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton 1887. The time to kill off judicial immunity is centuries overdue.
(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Abrams views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.)