| $140 Million
Dollar Claim Filed Against Los Angeles County District Attorney for
Admitting They Falsified Evidence in Records and Search Warrant Published: Mon, 17 Apr 2006, 16:52:00 GMT |
|
Edited by Christopher Laird Simmons Staff Writer, Send2Press.com |
|
Judge Paul Gutman Sets Hearing for April 27th
in Ongoing 'Fraud Upon The Court' Case
LOS ANGELES, CA - April 17 (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) -- "On April 14th, 2006, a
claim was filed with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for 140 Million
dollars by Anant Tripati. This stems from an admission by Richard Goldston, a
former agent of the L.A. County District Attorney, during deposition on October
19th, 2005 that he falsified evidence concerning search warrant SW34227 as well
as some related County records in a case against Mr. Tripati. The District
Attorney's Office has concealed the falsification of evidence admitted by
Goldston since 1992, and now admitted to by Lt. Belen Jeske. More supporting
admissions were provided by Lt. Jeske, currently employed by the L.A. County
District Attorney, in her deposition on August 22nd, 2005, where she states that
in Los Angeles County it is common for the District Attorney's Office to falsify
evidence as to search warrants," according to Bill Liebman.
"In the ongoing 'Fraud Upon The Courts' case, the lawyers for Los Angeles
County, of the law firm of Nelson and Fulton, have falsified evidence during the
proceedings and used blank, pre-signed verifications to verify discovery
responses. Lt. Jeske admitted during her deposition testimony to signing blank
verification forms for the L.A. County lawyers," continues Liebman.
"Supporters of Mr. Anant Tripati raised and posted $50,000 cash security
with the court as ordered by Judge Paul Gutman so as to challenge fraud upon the
court perpetrated by the District Attorney's Office against Tripati. This cash
security posting was ordered by the Judge in an attempt to halt the case against
L.A. County after the admissions of fraud evidence against L.A. County was
obtained during deposition testimony," states Liebman.
"As required by the Supreme Court case: Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S.
403, 415 (2002) [a simpler case without the denial-of-access element], after the
court dismissed the complaint BC326528 Tripati filed a CCP 473 Motion and an
action in Equity BC343351 claim with the L.A. County Board of supervisors. This
is prerequisite to filing a '1983' in Federal court. In the event that on April
27th, 2006, Judge Paul Gutman dismisses BC343351, Tripati will then be eligible
to file a 1983 in Federal court. Tripati is proceeding without counsel,"
according to Liebman.
"Lawyers familiar with the case state 'as a matter of California law, the
court should hold a trial on the issues as the admissions by County employees
seriously affects the integrity of their warrants.' Since Los Angeles County has
a lot of racial minorities, many others may have claims against Los Angeles as
well. One lawyer states 'CCP 391 should be amended by the legislature to exclude
all challenges for fraud and to exclude public entities or their agents from
invoking this code,'" comments Liebman.
Pertinent documents posted at: http://www.Frauduponcacourts.com
News Source: Anant Tripati
Send2Press® is the originating wire service
for this story.
Los
Angeles News is powered by Los Angeles Newswire™