Immunity, Indictment/Prosecution, Investigation, Liability


This page examines the legal impact of the underlying issues in this case, some of which are unexampled. While there are others, the issues examined here are:

1) Since particular officers of the court enjoy immunity, are these individuals subject to indictment/criminal prosecution for the crimes alleged in this presentation?
2) Is this the only instance in which these officers perpetrated a fraud upon the Fresno County Superior Court system, or are there other instances in which these officers defrauded the judicial process in a same or similar manner?
3) If there are other instances, is their discovery obligatory, by what mechanism will they be discoverable, and what will the legal impact of such discoveries be?

This section examines these issues by addressing the immunity question, extrapolating the collateral effects of indictment/successful prosecution of the individuals who participated in the criminal acts alleged, the county/state/federal obligation to investigate and the effects of the subsequent criminal prosecutions and civil litigations to follow if further wrongdoing is uncovered.

For each of these aspects, the effects outlined in this section can be divided into three categories; possible, probable, or inevitable. I leave it to the reader to differentiate between these categories based on the information and examples presented here.

Immunity

Immunity From Criminal Prosecution
Notwithstanding immunity from criminal prosecution under functional or personal immunity enjoyed by various Heads of State and like officials, there are three types of absolutely immune defendants; legislators, judges and prosecutors. While the distinction between the three is noteworthy when examining civil liability, it is not applicable to criminal prosecutions. With the exception mentioned, any individual who commits a criminal act is subject to prosecution for that act, so the successful prosecution of the individuals who participated in the crimes alleged would only depend on proving those crimes beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. As each participant is a principal to a conspiracy that resulted in federal capital crimes, they equally share responsibility for every crime committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and are equally at risk of federal sentences that would result in fines, restitutions, imprisonment for any number of years, imprisonment for life with or without the possibility of parole, or death. Also, subsequent prosecutions are possible if investigators uncover criminal acts committed by these principals against individuals other than myself.

Immunity From Civil Litigation
Immunity from civil litigation is a complex area of law, as immunity is enjoyed only when the officer is acting within the jurisdiction of the office they hold. The question, then, would be if the officers who qualify for immunity were acting within the jurisdiction of their offices when the crimes were committed. While I am confident of the answer, I defer this question to minds more qualified in this area.

However, it is well established that a municipality, such as the County of Fresno, enjoys no such immunity and is exposed as an individual to civil litigations. The same is true for officers of lesser status and county employees.

Collateral Effects of Indictment/Successful Prosecution

From the top down:

Collateral Effects of Indictment/Successful Criminal Prosecution of Judge Nancy Cisneros
    (a) Investigation of all cases adjudicated by Nancy Cisneros
    (b) Subsequent criminal prosecutions for similar conspiracies or judicial corruptions discovered
    (c) Cases adjudicated by Nancy Cisneros exposed to collateral attack
    (d) Judgments voided in cases adjudicated by Nancy Cisneros
    (e) County of Fresno required to reimburse monies, assigned or otherwise, paid to county pursuant to voided Title IV-D cases
    (f) County of Fresno required to reimburse individuals for properties seized pursuant to voided Title IV-D cases
    (g) County of Fresno exposed to civil litigation in corrupted/voided cases
    (h) County of Fresno exposed to Pattern-or-Practice litigations
    (i) County of Fresno exposed to RICO suits

Collateral Effects of Prosecution of ADA Timothy Paul Geisel
Criminal prosecution of Assistant/Deputy District Attorney Timothy Paul Geisel is not possible, as he is deceased as of September 26, 2004, however, the collateral effects on the cases where he was the attorney of record while employed by the County of Fresno would be similar to the effects on the cases adjudicated by Nancy Cisneros.

Collateral Effects of Indictment/Successful Criminal Prosecution of Remaining Principals
Any collateral effects generated by indictment/successful criminal prosecution of the other implicated officers of the court would vary according to the duties of the officer in question, as every officer that actively participated in the sham hearing of 6-09-94 had a different role to play and sole access to and responsibility for their respective duties within the legal machinery that made up the whole of the court's judicial process. Every possible effect is impossible to anticipate due to the lack of specific historical examples to compare against and the tendency for official investigations to spread, but some extrapolations are possible:

Indictment/successful prosecution of the Fresno County officer/employee found to be responsible for the forged warrant for my arrest would result in an investigation into the integrity of the other court case files this officer had access to. It would be inferred that since this individual had access to the Fresno County Clerks Office where the corrupted case file was kept, this officer also had access to the remainder of the case files controlled and maintained by the Fresno County Clerks Office during the period of this officer's employment. This constrained time frame would widen if the identity of the offending officer could not be ascertained.

Indictment/successful prosecution of the Fresno County officer/employee found to be responsible for the forged Register of Actions would result in an investigation into the integrity of the remaining electronic dockets, files and records this individual had access to. Reason would dictate that since the officer had access to the computer system and the software used to officially record the actions of the Fresno County Superior Court, every electronic record stored in that system has the possibility of being corrupted by that officer.

Indictment/successful prosecution of the Fresno County sheriff/court bailiff present at the 5-12-94 hearing may not affect the integrity of the cases heard before the courts he was assigned to, however, such a prosecution could, and should, result in further investigations into the legitimacy of other official actions taken by that officer in the line of duty; at the minimum, investigations into the other arrests he had performed.

Indictment/successful prosecution of Rattan Sourinphoumy, Nikki I., Jackie Meador and the other officers present at the 6-09-94 sham hearing would, to varying degrees, result in the same types of collateral effects described thus far. Their crimes, apart from being principals to a criminal conspiracy, include perjury, forgery, obstruction of justice, fraud on the court, corruption of records, uttering of forged instruments, etc. Everything these people touched is tainted and potentially corrupt.

Further Analysis of Officer Participation in the 6-09-94 Sham Hearing

The purpose of the sham hearing of 6-09-94 was to falsely convince me that the issues I raised before the court were being adjudicated before a legitimate court. That attempt failed, as I exited knowing what I witnessed was not a legitimate judicial process. The fraud on the court and the related corruption of the official record are not stand-alone events and the officers who actively participated are not the only actors. They are part of a machination that began with a mail fraud violation in March of 1991, when my then employer received a terminated/void wage assignment order* relating to case #277340-6. This abuse of process was a deception designed to procure payments of monies to be diverted toward case #375290-4 over a period of time in order to create a statute of limitation defense against attack on the default judgment in case #375290-4 that was being used by the County of Fresno to fraudulently take real property to which I held lawful title.
Every County of Fresno officer or employee who participated in any official action relating to either FSD case during or after March of 1991 is a potential principal to the criminal conspiracy described in this presentation, and as the Fresno County District Attorneys Office is implicated and the crimes fall within federal jurisdiction, the investigations mentioned would, by necessity, be conducted by the United States Department of Justice with county/state cooperation.

*Wage assignment order as terminated:
In March of 1991, The Fresno County District Attorneys Office/Family Support Division mailed a wage assignment order pursuant to Order Assigning Salary or Wages dated 10-14-83 from case #277340-6 by USPS to my then employer Reliable Painters. This same wage assignment order had been previously received by Ray & Company Painting, where I was employed in 1983. My employment by that company terminated on 12-11-83. This wage assignment order automatically terminated on 12-11-84, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §706.030(c)(1) “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter: (1) An employer shall continue to withhold pursuant to a withholding order for support…except that a withholding order for support shall automatically terminate one year after the employment of the employee by the employer terminates.”

Wage assignment order as void:
10-14-83 Order Assigning Salary or Wages was originally an order for current support ($100.00 mo.) and accrued arrears/reimbursements ($25.00 mo.). The support obligation in case #277340-6 ended on 11-13-87 due to the adoption of the child in this case by his then step-father.

Observations

Since I've never had a personal relationship with any of the officers named, or interacted with them outside of their official capacities, I've concluded that the fraud I find myself the victim of is not a personal vendetta of some sort, but rather, was designed to achieve a specific, preferential goal. I then question if this was the first and only instance in which these officers engaged in this type of behavior. I believe it is unlikely, based on the complexity of the fraud, the number of people necessary to perpetrate it, and the number of years it took to implement it.

RICO

Upon investigation, if it is found that I am not the only person targeted in this manner by the judicial/prosecutorial system operating within the County of Fresno, then how many other cases exist and, more importantly, how many need to be discovered before the federal government concludes that the patterns of behavior exhibited by the County of Fresno, it's officers and it's employees meet the definition of racketeering under federal RICO statutes, due to the sheer bulk of the various county offices and officials I have witnessed working in concert of action in what can only be described as a coordinated criminal effort? (i.e. Fresno County Superior Court, Fresno County District Attorneys Office, Fresno County Department of Child Support Services, Fresno County Sheriffs Department, Fresno County Clerks Office, etc.) While counties have been named as defendants in RICO suits, a local government being identified by the federal government as a criminal enterprise engaging in interstate commerce* under RICO statutes has never occurred before…but then, neither has a judicial/prosecutorial/public corruption case of this nature.
* example: enforcing support orders against out of state obligors

Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of thirty five crimes—twenty seven federal crimes and eight state crimes—within a ten-year period can be charged with racketeering. In my case alone, five of the thirty five predicate offenses defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961 are present: mail fraud, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, kidnapping and robbery.

Examples

These cases and individuals, combined with other sources, contribute to my conclusions:

Judge Mark Ciavarella
[1] [2] [3]

Annie Dookhan
[1]
[2]

Judge Michael Conahan
[1]

U.S. District Judge Jack T. Camp, Jr.
[1]

Paul Bergrin
[1]

Judge Abel Corral Limas
[1]

Others: State Representative Brian McLaughlin, County District Attorney Armando R. Villalobos, State Senator Thomas L. Bromwell, Kwame Kilpatrick, State Senator Thomas L. Bromwell, Mayor Vincent Albert Cianci, Jr., Senator Alan Robbins


Next:
Narrative