ONE MAN’S OPINION--Had Jose Huizar plead guilty, then we’d know that he had worked out a deal with the Feds.
However, Huizar is pleading not guilty which suggests he is looking for a better deal which carries the threat that he may squeal.
Similar to Jeffrey Epstein, Huizar holds a bargaining card. Huizar also has damning dirt on more important public officials. The Feds have a dilemma with Jose Epstein, er, I mean the Huizar. How can the Feds prove Huizar took a $1.5 Million without proving Huizar had the power to guarantee the project’s approval?
So, what if the City’s PLUM Committee approved an absurdly grotesque project. Why would the City Council approve it? How could a developer be certain of a majority vote at city council?
In most cities, the more horrible a project that emerges from PLUM, the more likely others will vote No. Some minor hank-panky at PLUM won’t kill an otherwise acceptable project, but an obscenely illegal project such as routinely passes city council would draw repeated rejection.
City Council Rule 25 requires ten councilmembers to have a quorum which means at least six must vote Yes to approve a project. How would a developer know which six councilmembers to bribe? Even if a developer could bribe six councilmembers, how could he make certain that 12 or more councilmembers might not be present? No one pays $1.5 Million when he gets no guarantee in return. Quid pro quo is the foundation of corruption. Corruption is more than a developer’s showering a councilmember with money. He has to be getting something in return, and mathematics prove that by himself Huizar had nothing to give in return for $1.5 million.
Did Huizar Have the Power?
Let’s take a look-see at how many times a councilmember votes No on a Jose Huizar project during calendar years 2012 through 2018. These years are vital. According to the Feds, Developer #1 met Huizar in 2013. Here is a tally of No Votes on a Huizar Project
Year 2012 = zero No votes
Year 2013 = zero No votes
Year 2014 = zero No votes
Year 2015 = zero No votes
Year 2016 = zero No votes
Year 2017 = zero No votes
Year 2018 = zero No votes Nov 7, 2018 FBI raid Huizar’s office
Year 2019 = one No Vote AECOM Hotel, July 2, 2019
Year 2020 = zero No Votes
Developers bribe Huizar because he, like all councilmember, guarantees unanimous approval. How does he do that?
All Councilmembers Participated in Bribery
Each Councilmember participates in a criminal enterprise where he/she trades his/her votes in return for Yes votes by other councilmembers. That is why all projects are unanimously approved. The FBI knows it; Judge Richard Fruin knew when he ruled that corruption is non-justiciable. Corruption rests at the core of our judicial system. Whether it is murdering Blacks or financially raping elders or stealing hundreds of billions with construction projects, corruption is systemic.
The Depth of the Systemic Corruption Defies Belief
Let’s look systemic corruption emanating from the California Supreme Court. As previously explained, the California Supreme Court already condones judges’ using religious and ethnicity bigotry in making decisions (B227620 Aug 12, 2015) and the Second Appellate District in Mozer v Augustine (B288162 Sept 17, 2019) held that mediation confidentiality prevents a person who has been cheated by the mediator from ever mentioning the fraud. Mozer is consistent with the Supreme Court case of Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1 which held that courts must enforce binding arbitrations which are false on their face and work a substantial injustice. After Moncharsh, people avoided arbitration and moved to mediations, where the parties agree to a settlement rather than having a corrupt ex judge impose his decision on them. Then, judicial corruptionism devastated medations.
In Cassel v. Super. Ct. Citation 51 Cal. 4th 113 (2011), the Supreme Court turned mediations in a judicial weapon of mass destruction by giving attorneys carte blanc to lie, cheat, and steal from the clients in collusion with the opposing counsel, the mediator and the judge who set up the mediation. After a mediation of a business dispute, Michael Cassel sued his attorneys for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conflict of interest. Cassel alleged that due to his own attorneys committing fraud on him, the opposing party significantly benefitted during mediation.
Once attorneys owed their clients fiduciary duties (Flatt v. Superior Court (Daniel) (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275). The attorney had to place his client’s interests above the attorney’s own interests with the limitation that the attorney could not actively engaged in fraud or criminal behavior to help his client. Under Cassel, however, the attorney may engage in fraud and criminality to harm his client. Under Cassel, your own attorney may cheat out of everything you own and you can do nothing about it.
In Cassel, the Supreme Court expanded the mediation confidentiality to cover not only the bargaining discussions during the mediation, where lots lying may have taken place, but any lie that one’s own attorneys tells the client.
“Confidentiality . . . extends beyond utterances or writings “in the course of” a mediation, and thus is not confined to communications that occur between mediation disputants during the mediation proceeding itself. . . even though they [excluded evidence] may compromise petitioner’s ability to prove his claim of legal malpractice.” Cassel at 119 Translation from legalese. “Attorneys may lie to clients.”
The extreme scope of Cassel wipes out all duties that attorneys woe clients in connection with a mediation. As we saw with the Widow M, her attorney never told her she was signing away all her property. The reality is that now there would be no need for her to sign since her name could be forged and she would be stuck with it. In fact, afterwards, on June 25, 2020 her name was forged on a change of address for her pension to Jeffrey Siegel’s post office box, P.O. Box 761398 Los Angeles, CA 90076. There is no dispute that it is a forgery. A quick forgery and over $5,000.00 per month of the Widow M’s pension goes to Jeffrey Siegel with the blessings of corrupt judges. Where does a victim turn when the courts are run by predators?
California’s systemic corruption is all encompassing. It runs from Kamala Harris’s love for lying jailhouse informants, to Judge Fruin’s granting the City Council immunity for corruption, to the theft of elder’s property and perhaps even to Huizar’s being Epsteined should he be so foolish as to squeal about the criminal vote trading system.
(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: Rickleeabrams@Gmail.com. Abrams’ views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.)