Corruption in the California Federal Judicial System: Part Three of a Four-Part Series
The following is the third installment of this series, which recounts what many people who have not (yet) experienced our wonderful legal system will find totally unbelievable. It is a portion of a criminal complaint that I've tried to put in front of the special grand jury. The person I'm writing about in this particular segment, Louise DeCarl Adler, is a judge for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California.
COMPLAINEE: LOUISE DECARL ADLER
There are some major red flags concerning Judge Adler’s actions. When viewed out of context and individually, they may not seem significant. However, when viewed together in the grand scheme of things, it is highly unlikely that she is performing her judicial duties objectively and without some sort of connection to the criminal activity of Mihelic and certain individuals in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. All I ask when I go into any court in this country is that members of the system follow their own rules and laws. I have been before no fewer than seventy judges in my life and can count the times on one hand that they have.
A JUDGE IS SUPPOSED TO UPHOLD THE LAW, NOT BE ITS BIGGEST VIOLATOR
Undoubtedly, Judge Adler has violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judge, rules of court, civil and criminal statutory law, stare decisis, and the U.S. Constitution. The violations are proved in the following subsections.
Violation of 28 U.S. Code § 1930 (f)(1)
When my bankruptcy was initially filed, Judge Adler seemed to be deliberately steering the case in the direction she wanted it to go. She tried to block me from filing my chapter 7 petition in the first place by not allowing me to proceed in forma pauperis and making me pay the filing fee. However, since the date on which I filed my Chapter 7 petition, I have requested a fee waiver eight other times, and all eight have been unconditionally granted—two of which were for the related “financial management courses” that are required as part of the bankruptcy process. In all instances, I provided the same financial information, so her decision is extremely suspicious.
In fact, 28 U.S. Code § 1930 (f)(1) clearly states that “the bankruptcy court may waive the filing fee in a case under chapter 7 of title 11 for an individual if the court determines that such individual has income less than 150 percent of the income official poverty line.” My income is well below that level. The obvious reason why I was blocked from filing without paying the filing fee when the fee was waived in all eight other instances is that she (and Mihelic) received a phone call from former attorney, and now judge, Joseph L. Michaud asking the court to deny my petition.
Not Abiding by Stare Decisis with Respect to Information Not Protect by Attorney-Client Privilege
Judge Adler also allowed Mihelic’s motion to quash my subpoena to produce phone records strictly comprised of number, date/time, and duration of each call—not any particular content of the calls or anything else—which is not something that could be even remotely misconstrued as “information and records that are protected by the attorney work product and attorney-client privileges.” See attached proof on pages 20 and 21. This is nonsense. During discovery I requested the same phone records, which Mihelic again refused to provide. See attached proof on pages 25 and 26.
The reason I specifically asked for general information in the subpoena is that I knew private information could legitimately be blocked. Judge Adler had no legal authority to prevent me from receiving a mere listing of phone numbers and duration of calls. The act of her—and Mihelic—blocking me, which I fully expected to happen, is a strong indicator that communication between Adler and Michaud and/or Michaud and Mihelic occurred.
As explained in number 5 above, the fact that such records exist is not protected, which Judge Adler and Mihelic know full well. In conjunction with the information presented in number 10 above, there is now no question that calls were made by and/or to Michaud and that he contaminated the instant case by his own false statements. It is a virtual guarantee.
Not Abiding by Stare Decisis with Respect to Illegally Denying a Jury Trial
Mihelic filed a motion to deny my right to a jury trial. Judge Alder allowed the motion even though ample supporting statutory and case law I cited says she should have denied it—probably because she does not read anything I submit to the court. During the December 17, 2020, telephonic conference, she did not respond to me after I firmly asked, “Are you reading anything I send you?” Instead, I was met with dead silence, which confirms that she doesn’t.
I was especially careful in my answer to Mihelic’s complaint not to file a counterclaim because Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989) said that a defendant who files a counterclaim in a bankruptcy proceeding is deemed to have consented to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction and waived any right to a jury trial. That court also said a litigant has a right to a jury trial when the cause of action is legal in nature and when it concerns private rights. In my answer, I simply asked for “punitive damages from AUST and the U.S. government, plus attorney fees, costs, and interest,” which are legal in nature.
McCord v. Papantoniou, 316 B.R. 113 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), which I cited in a motion I filed in the bankruptcy court and concerned fraudulent conveyance as does the instant case, made clear that “the defendant’s right to a jury trial is preserved where both legal and equitable claims are asserted” (emphasis added). Relevant law is also found in the U.S. Supreme Court case Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974), which I also cited in the same motion: “More important, the relief sought here—actual and punitive damages—is the traditional form of relief offered in the courts of law.” Footnote 11 of that matter also lends it help by stating, “If the action is properly viewed as one for damages only, our conclusion that this is a legal claim obviously requires a jury trial on demand. And if this legal claim is joined with an equitable claim, the right to jury trial on the legal claim, including all issues common to both claims, remains intact” (emphasis added). Despite any requirements that “core” proceedings or any equitable claims in the instant case be conducted in the bankruptcy court, legal claims, such as my request for punitive damages, entitle me to a jury trial.
There is a plethora of additional support. “In any event, it is the defendant who has made demand for a jury trial in this case, and the counterclaims make no request for equitable relief, only monetary damages. Thus, severance of the trial of the complaint from consideration of trial of the counterclaims would serve only to reinforce our conclusion that the defendant’s right to a jury trial is not compromised by the pleadings” (emphasis added). In re Data Compass Corp., 92 B.R. 575, 577 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1988).
In re Ben Cooper, Inc., 896 F.2d 1394 (2d Cir. 1990) is yet another example. “Cooper seeks damages from them for alleged negligence and malpractice. It is difficult to imagine a claim that is more inherently legal” (emphasis added). That court said that even though the proceeding was “core,” appellees were entitled to a jury trial. “We nevertheless hold that the bankruptcy courts may conduct jury trials in core proceedings.” When discussing the topic of bankruptcy courts conducting jury trials for core proceedings, that court said, “The cases in support of this view are too numerous to cite” (emphasis added).
Not Abiding by Stare Decisis Regarding Appointment of Counsel
28 U.S. Code § 1915(e)(1) says, “The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” The decision is generally discretionary except in two types of proceedings, one of which involves indigent people being potentially deprived of their right against self-incrimination as protected by the Fifth Amendment or being potentially deprived of that same right as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment through due process. Appointed counsel is required for indigent litigants whenever rights against self-incrimination are imperiled, regardless of the situation.
The U.S. Supreme Court opined in Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (1975), “This Court has always broadly construed [Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination] protection to assure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action.” Continuing in its opinion, it said that “counsel must be appointed for any indigent witness, whether or not he is a party, in any proceeding in which his testimony can be compelled…Unless counsel is appointed, these indigents will be deprived, just as surely as Maness’ client would have been had he not been advised by Maness, of the opportunity to decide whether to assert their constitutional privilege.” Bear in mind that the high court’s decision was not split; it was unanimous.
During the phone conference of January 14, 2021, Judge Adler upheld her tentative order issued on January 12, 2021, to compel discovery, including deposing me. See attached proof on page 41. After I informed Judge Adler of 28 U.S. Code § 1915(e)(1) by quoting it directly and of the unanimous Maness ruling, she failed to acknowledge that the law allows for appointed counsel outside of criminal proceedings and actually mandates it in the instant case. She said that I would only be represented by appointed counsel if “the U.S. trustee finds that [I] made false statements” in the instant case and I am charged criminally. Notice that she mentioned nothing regarding the statements being alleged until proved in court and thus completely disregards due process. The word of Mihelic would itself be sufficient to substantiate the veracity of such statements. This is nothing less than horrifying.
That aside, the intent of Maness is preventative, not reparative, so her “reasoning” is wrong. That court stated, “Although the proceeding in which he is called is not criminal, it is established that a witness may not be required to answer a question if there is some rational basis for believing that it will incriminate him, at least without at that time being assured that neither it nor its fruits may be used against him.” In the same conference on January 14, 2021, Judge Adler asked, “Have you tried legal aid?” I replied, “Yes, but nobody will touch it. There’s too much corruption.” Instead of replying, “Oh my, well, we will investigate that, and, yes, I will abide by the law and Constitution and appoint you counsel,” she said, “Well, I can’t help you.”
Misprision of Felony
As stated previously, just as Mihelic was made fully aware of felonious acts committed by others, so was Judge Adler. I submitted an open letter to the court on November 16, 2020, informing her of such acts. See attached proof on page 37. I informed her many times verbally and in court pleadings of Mihelic’s two known counts of perjury, upon which she failed to act. Since she has also concealed the felonies committed by others—who now include Mihelic—she has violated criminal law 18 U.S. Code § 4 too and has been an accessory after the fact.
Concealing and Covering up Records in Bankruptcy
Judge Adler, as has Mihelic, has concealed or, at the very least, tried to conceal fraud and corruption by ignoring the open letter I submitted to the court on November 16, 2020, and all the records that reveal the true fraud and corruption in the underlying matter in Massachusetts. See attached proof on page 37. Thus, she has also broken criminal law 18 U.S. Code § 1519.
Judge Adler, as has Mihelic, has violated this subsection because she refused to investigate the same underlying matters that Mihelic failed to investigate and then compounded the violation by refusing to investigate Mihelic for her misconduct and crimes. For these reasons, Judge Adler has also violated 18 U.S. Code § 3057.
JUDGE ADLER’S ACTIONS ARE COMPLETELY WRONG AND COMPLETELY ILLEGAL
The crimes that have been committed here in California are no different from the ones committed in Massachusetts: perjury, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, obstruction of justice, falsifying evidence and records. Nothing has changed; the song remains the same. Decades ago, one would have to go through ten judges to get one bad one. Today, one has to go through ten judges to get one good one. I am roughly on my eighteenth judge since this case really began back in 2002, so I am long overdue for that one good one.
Not surprisingly, Mihelic keeps saying, “Look at the court record.” Of course that’s what she is going to say. She effectively wrote/engineered the (corrupt) court record as explained in the Conflicts of Interest subsection below. I’m saying, “No! Look at the evidence instead, which nobody has done yet anywhere in the nation.” It has become plainly apparent that there are two sets of rules: rules for people that the system likes and rules for people that the system doesn’t like.
Ignores Everything I Submit
Judge Adler tried to steamroll the hearing on my motion to alter judgment during the December 17, 2020, conference. She only was ready and willing to address (and allow) Mihelic’s motion to compel and was perfectly happy to skip right over my motion and would have done so if I had not immediately interrupted the calling of the next matter. During this hearing and as stated earlier, she did not respond to me when I firmly asked, “Are you reading anything I send you?” Instead, I was met with dead silence. Her failure to answer was undeniably a definitive answer.
During the hearing on June 24, 2021, and after the lies in the court record and by Mihelic had been accepted as true and after Mihelic stated that I filed a motion to dismiss, Judge Adler said, “I see you’ve been busy writing another motion.” The translation is: “I’m not going to read this one either, but it is just another nuisance that we have to put up with.”
Judge Adler said in one of the first few telephonic hearings that I had “an elite level of knowledge of the law” and asked if I was an attorney, but she has proceeded to ignore everything I have said or submitted nonetheless. The statement is not true anyway. What I have is an elite level of knowledge of the legal system. There is a big difference. I know how the world’s largest crime syndicate truly operates and am the leading expert on the topic. I literally wrote the book on the subject and speak nationally about it.
Conflicts of Interest
Mihelic and Judge Adler are both members of the following organizations. See attached proof on pages 43 through 47. It is virtually impossible that they have never met at any respective social functions and do not have some sort of interpersonal relationship. This can certainly be viewed as a conflict of interest. The list is not intended to be exhaustive:
- Lawyers Club of San Diego
- San Diego Bankruptcy Forum
- National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges
- International Women’s Insolvency and Restructuring Confederation
Not surprisingly, neither Judge Adler nor Mihelic are members of the American Constitution Society or Christian Legal Society. It may not seem like a big deal, but, like a puzzle, all pieces connected together reveal much more than a single piece by itself.
Regarding every phone conference associated with my bankruptcy in which I’ve ever participated, without exception, the judge asks someone else to write the court order whenever one needs to be created. In my case, it’s always Mihelic whom she asks. She is letting the Department of Injustice be judge, jury, and executioner by having its personnel write the court’s orders. The evidence strongly indicates that Mihelic secretly wrote—even when not directed to do so by Adler—many, if not all, the orders and rulings as is obvious by the plethora of lies they contain, which is Mihelic's trademark signature. Adler simply proceeded to rubber-stamp everything Mihelic submitted. It is bad enough having an opposing party write a court order since doing so is clearly a conflict of interest, but having a government attorney who I’ve proved has lied well in excess of thirty times and perjured herself at least twice in just this single bankruptcy matter do it is about as massive a conflict of interest imaginable anywhere on Earth. In everything Mihelic has written—both her own pleadings and court orders and rulings—she has consistently omitted things that are true and adding things that are false. Basically, a criminal is creating the court record and another one is blessing it, and then the first criminal points to the court record that she created to support even more lies. If this is not jaw-dropping to whoever reads this, then I don’t know what is.
Words Omitted in Court Orders and Other Documents
Several documents and court orders had words omitted from them. An example of one such document is is the order entered on March 29, 2021. The wording in this order is written with the phrase “and of any other communication from or to him” omitted in an attempt to conceal the crime of perjury described in number 10 above. The order says “[t]here is no evidence.” There’s plenty of evidence; it’s just that some evidence is being hidden and/or ignored by the system. Another example relates to the court orders of April 2, 2021, and June 21, 2021. Notice that the latter order conveniently leaves out the quoted wording “The deposition to be held virtual.” Furthermore, neither one requires either party to be physically present at the court reporter’s office for the deposition. By leaving out the important wording, the order tries to make it appear that only Mihelic was supposed to attend virtually. This differs significiantly from an order issued months earlier requiring physical appearance; however, that particular order was in conflict with another judicial order (Chief Judge Order number 18-A) that was in effect for the entire judicial district and overruled the local order by prohibiting in-person court events. Omissions in these two instances are merely examples; there are many others.
Keep in mind that the words in the court orders aren’t Judge Adler’s own words. They are really the words of Mihelic. But blame cannot be shifted away from Adler simply because Mihelic lied and left out key words in her pleadings and court orders. It is the judge’s responsibility to either write her own orders or actually look at the evidence to verify what has been written in orders drafted by the Department of Injustice. Turning a blind eye to all of this is no excuse, especially when I’ve repeatedly told the judge about the misconduct and criminal acts of Mihelic. In order to make things fit her narrative, Mihelic blatantly and wantonly ignored elements of the record and in other documents when it suited her to do so.....and Adler went along for the ride.
Judge Adler is heavily, Heavily, HEAVILY biased. She has made overtly biased statements in telephonic meetings/hearings and explicitly in the court record.
- One such statement was made in the tentative ruling of October 13, 2020, part of which is as follows: “Although it is premised, in part, on Defendant’s [alleged] transfers of real property to avoid and frustrate creditors, it is not an action requesting recovery of a fraudulent transfer.” Whenever anyone associated with a legal action does not use terms such as “alleged” when accusations are made but not yet proved in court, it not only flies in the face of conformance with due process, but it is constitutionally offensive—particularly when made by a judge. See attached proof on page 42.
- Another was made during the hearing on December 17, 2020. When the discussion concerned affidavits and Mihelic was complaining that I had not provided contact information for the respective parties, Judge Adler said, “I find that hard to believe,” after I stated I did not have the requested contact information. She said this without knowing any details about the affidavits whatsoever: that they were sent clear across the country, that they were composed by people I do not really know, and that they were provided by a third party.
- Yet another was made during the hearing on April 1, 2021. Judge Adler asked Mihelic: “What will you need to be ready for trial?” She did not ask what I needed. Apparently, it doesn’t matter what I need to be ready for trial—just what Mihelic needs.
Judge Adler also granted every known oral motion from Mihelic but denied every single verbal motion and opposition from me—and there are many. All the motions in the court record that state they were “unopposed” were not. The court took its time to allow me to file electronically. I did not oppose Mihelic in writing because I could not afford the added expense of printing and filing by U.S. mail, but I tried to state my positions verbally. Judge Adler prevented it. But she sure allowed Mihelic to present oral motions on several occasions. Here are two examples. Finally, Mihelic has asked for at least six or seven extensions thus far, which is beyond outrageous—and even more outrageous for the court to grant them all.
If you want to comment as a guest without signing in with social media and without signing up with Disqus:1 – Enter your comment
2 – Click in the Name box and enter the name you want associated with your comment
3 – Click in the Email box and enter your email address
4 – Select "I'd rather post as a guest"
5 – Validate the CAPTCHA and then click the arrow
comments powered by Disqus