I propose that the Santa Cruz court is so prejudicial in favor of attorneys, such as Mr. Bosso, whose partner is married to a local civil judge, Judge Adack, that they routinely, and without consideration, violate the rights of those who cannot afford legal counsel, the pro per litigant - to the point of being corrupt.
Case 155181: Background: Briefly: In October, I agreed in court to be served by Mr. Bosso by fax, at Bill's Copy Shop; for a specific phase of litigation. However, by December, I had changed my fax number to Kinkos and all parties were aware of this in December. All parties were aware of my new Kinkos's number because they faxed their final signed settlement pages to Kinko's, including the final dismissal to, and from, Mr. Bosso's office.
However, in February Bosso faxed me a Notice to Enforce a Settlement Agreement, according to his interpretation of the ambiguous term 'exclusive, ' at the old Bill's Copy Shop fax number, and I received no other notice. Consequently, because I had not received Bosso's Motion until March 9, the week of the hearing, I quickly drafted an opposition and on the 12th, the day before the hearing, had it filed. I then left my house on the 13th at 3:00 A.M. To argue in court that I did not have enough time to prepare due to lack of proper notice, ambiguity of the term exclusive' within the settlement agreement, and to let the court know I intend to have legal counsel during a hearing for such a motion.
But, Judge Almquist ruled that my opposition was not accepted because I had not properly served the parties; after all I could have sent all parties a fax the night before, even though there is no agreement between the parties to allow for such a fax... But of course Bosoo lied and said that no other party had received notice of the new Kinko's fax number... And of course Judge Almquist would not even let me speak to provide evidence that Bosso himself had sent me a fax at the new Kinko's fax number in consummation of the settlement in December.
More importantly, because the settlement agreement states that all previous agreements are void; and the law requires a written agreement in order to notice by fax California Rules of Court Rule 2.306 (a), Judge Almquist abused his discretion by ruling on Bosso's Motion, as if it was unopposed and because I had not properly served the other parties.
Also, I told Judge Almquist that I wanted time to hire legal counsel for the proceeding, but because Bosso told the court that I did not need legal counsel, since I had my J.D., Judge Almquist would not let me speak in defense of Bosso's Motion in court at all. Since when is it up to the court, or the opposing attorney, to decide that a person is not entitled to legal counsel, even if they have a J.D.
Currently, my neighbors, Tim and Niki Bowden, claim that I have no right to use two portions of my land, except to pay property tax, based upon the ambiguous term exclusive'. One of the easements was executed by Charles McKee, and Mr. McKee provided a declaration stating that he did not intend to convey ownership. Mr McKee was a nice, and uneducated, man who signed a complicated deed the Bowdens' had their attorney prepare and did not understand the terms. He wanted to simply allow the Bowdens' to be able to park on his land; not to exclude himself from all uses of his land.
However, Bowdens placed a gate across this easement and claim that I have no right to use it at all because of the word exclusive' in the deed. The word exclusive' arose because the other neighbor Ms. Sexson also wanted to use this portion of Charles McKee's land. Therefore, Bowdens' take down your gate and let me use my land because the word 'exclusive' alone does not grant you a right to exclude me from my own land.
The seller, Mr. Haber, signed the second easement deed, but never told me that he intended to sell me land I could not use, except to pay for the property tax. The Bowdens' supposedly approached Haber when Haber was distraught with the news that his daughter had cancer, with a deed prepared by their attorney Bosso.
So, I thought that I had a settlement. However, when Bosso went to draft the final deeds, he proposed to change the entire intent of the settlement agreement, adding terms such as "incorporation by reference" and "structure, " which are not even mentioned in the settlement agreement; and where Bosso claims his client has no duty to quitclaim' (a term of the agreement) and purchase the land. Bosso claims that his client can continue to use my land, while I pay property taxes, where I cannot use my land for any purpose; based upon NO evidence that I agreed to this.
Also, the term 'exclusive' was never litigated and it conflicts with terms in the settlement agreement. Bosoo, added the term during the third revision of the agreement knowing my intent behind the word exclusive. When I discovered this, I immediately sent to all parties an email of my intent to rescind the contract, and return their money, because the word 'exclusive' still has not been litigated; and the settlement agreement does not state my intent to give up my right to my own land.
However, even though Civil Code Section 664.6 states that Judge Almquist cannot interpret terms of a settlement agreement without substantial evidence, Judge Almquist would not even allow me oral argument in court, and completely interpreted the ambiguous terms of the settlement in Bosso's favor, based upon a hearing where Judge Almquist denied me my constitutional right to due process; according to the 14th and 15th amendment and, California Rules of Court Rule 2.306 (a), and without ANY evidence of the terms of the settlement agreement.
Rules of California court. Rule 664 states that a judge cannot interpret terms of an agreement where there is no meeting of the mind; and Bosso NO proof that I intended to give up my land as part of the settlement agreement.
SCREWED AGAIN by a court that is so willing to give Bosso deference at every turn, even though he has continually shown the court that in my opinion, he lacks integrity. The rulings that have come out of the Santa Cruz court in this case demonstrate a pattern of corruption; in violation to a pro per basic constitutional rights.
For example, in July of Bosso asked Judge Burdick to stop all discovery based upon ONE interrogatory request (Unheard of!). So, Burdick stopped all discovery until October of with a trial date of December. However, the settlement fell apart when it turned out that even though the Bowdens, and Bosso, had to have known that Bowdens were using yet another road across my land, without a deed; they did not disclose this. This fact could have been discovered before October if I had not been deprived of my constitutional right to reasonable discovery.
So Judge Burdick conspired to allow Bosso to not disclose material facts about the case to me before the settlement agreement; because once I settle it would be my tough luck that I did not discover this additional unlawful use of my land by the Bowdens. Consequently, I had to hold onto this property, with NINE easements in dispute, while the housing crashed. Judge Burdick you have cost my family great harm toward your willingness to improperly support Bosso, whose legal partner is married to Judge Adack.
Another example, Judge Stevens signed an enforcement to settle in favor of my realtor, who did not protect me, even though the agreement was not signed by my, and no terms of any such agreement were ever placed on the court record (or even discussed in court); in violation of the law, and was judicial abuse. Oh and what the time Judge Stevens claimed that my amended complaint was not in file. Well, I followed my file directly to the court records, from court, and WOW IT WAS RIGHT THERE ON TOP! Did Judge Stevens not even glance at the file??? For more examples, see my videos. During this lawsuit, various judges told me seven times my motions and reply briefs were not in the file, when I had a stamped copy showing they were filed; and I always subsequently confirmed that the motion or brief was in the file.
The Sana Cruz court's willingness to compromise the rights of people, especially the pro per litigant, makes our system inaccessible to those without legal means; and threatens basic democracy. We need stronger watch dog tools against Judges who favor the well connected; in blatant violation of the law and a person's constitutional right to a fair trial.
I am seeking legal assistance. This case should be important because if this kind of abuse is happening to me, it is happening to a lot of other people in Santa Cruz.in fact, I hear more and more stories about innocent property owners having similar experiences over complicated deeds, using the ambiguous term exclusive, ' where the Sana Cruz Mountains is not viewed as a safe place to invest in property.
I propose, a change in legislation to make it unlawful for an experienced neighbor, (the Bowdens have had two previous lawsuits with their other neighbor Ms. Sexson because they encroached on her land), armed with an experienced lawyer, preying on neighbors with complicated deeds, using ambiguous terms, such as exclusive' designed to acquire land without paying for it.in fact, even though I paid for my land once, I have had to pay for it again to defend it (at great financial hardship); while my neighbors are essentially getting ownership of my land without paying for it. Bowden's acts result in lawsuits involving innocent buyers, realtors, etc. And should be banned as a public policy.in my opinion, it is a form of fraud to everyone who conducts business in the real estate community. If you sell land to someone that they cannot use, the deed must specifically state exclusive to the owner of the land.
I have videos on MySpace that describe how because the Santa Cruz court refused to require my neighbors to quiet title, the unlawful trespasser, and placed that burden on me, I was denied use of my insurance for legal assistance. However, I wonder if Bowdens had all their legal costs paid by insurance. If so, because the Santa Cruz court denied my request to require the illegal trespasser, the Bowdens, to pay to quiet title, ; and placed Bowdens in a position of Defendants, the Bowdens would not have paid any money for my land, but Bosso made money; and I presume his law firm made money (for which his partner is married to a local judge).
This is what is going on in Santa Cruz County, and I am speaking out for legal assistance; community support; and support from developers. I intend to appeal Judge Almquist's ruling, and would appreciate any community, or legal, support I can get against the above abuses.
Oh Judge Almquist. Because I sustained such extreme financial damage through this 2 year lawsuit, which was not recovered during settlement because I was in distress and accepted a low settlement, I fell behind in my house payments on the disputed property. As I was negotiating a settlement with IndyMac, they unlawfully filed a Notice of Default against my property.in fact, even though by CA law they have to notice you through mail and certified mail, I did not even know about the Notice of Default for a month after it was recorded. However, Judge Almquist granted my temporary restraining order against any foreclosure, but he set a $10,000 bond. HA HA HA JUDGE ALMQUIST YOU GOT ME AGAIN!
No wonder, the middle class is being walked on right now, we have a judicial with no RESPECT for what the law is supposed to represent JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE. How can we be surprised that our government officials become so corrupt at the high levels of our system, when corruption starts right here in our backyard.
0 comments