Bryer vs. Pentoney et. al.

Case 99C01754



Filed July 21, 1999   (Summary pages - page 1, page 2, page 3)

This is a request for injunctive relief to compel defendants to produce records. The defendants have refused to give up records. These records are part of the scheme perpetrated by the LA Superior Court Judges Association AKA Family Services Special Fund. This suit contends that the records that are hidden from me will reveal additional fraud. This organization is a private non-profit organization that has stolen funds that were destined for the County treasury.

Background
 

Last August '98 - Gregory Pentoney was arrested in a related kickback scheme - Case BA 173392. - being prosecuted by LA County DA. Also Pentoney is being sued by City of Glendale for similar fraud (case tabled until outcome of LA case). Pentoney has declared that he has insufficient money and has been appointed an attorney to defend him in the criminal suit - a public defender.

Aug 23, 1999 - Now comes Michael M. Bergfeld, claiming he is representing Pentoney by 'Special Appearance'. Bergfeld is from the firm of Collins, Collins, Muir and Traver, LLP. Bergfeld says he has been hired by the County of LA to defend Pentoney and other defendants. (Ex Parte Application - page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5, page 6). (The Crusaders learned later on October 9, 1999, that Bergfeld has lied about the LA County hiring him to represent the defendants. The County categorically denies that they have hired the firm of Collins, Collins, Muir and Traver for this case, nor has any money been paid to the law firm. So who hired these expensive attorney's in this case?) Bergfeld even makes a weasel-worded statement under oath (page 4) that these individuals "maybe provided a defense in this case by the County"

1. Bergfeld wants the case moved away from the Glendale Court (where the County has less influence). However, even though he says the Glendale Municipal Court is not the right venue for this case, he asks the Glendale Court to Order an extension (granted) for his clients. If the Glendale Municipal court has provided a ruling then how can it not be in its jurisdiction?

2. Bergfeld declares under oath that he has never spoken to any of the defendants, including Pentoney. How is it that he is in court specially appearing for Pentoney? Is he representing the taxpayers (me?) as the County's counsel? I have not sued the County, only the criminals that are employed there and their little schemes to siphon off the taxpayers funds.

3. Are all County employees entitled to defense by big-time law firms? Especially without their knowledge?

4. Bergfeld states that he is the attorney of record for defendant *. Just who is he representing?

5. Bergfeld claims that the Family Court Services Special Fund is a public entity and part of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Where is it and who does it serve?

Here is the ironic part - Family Court Services Special Fund is in reality the LA Superior Court Judges Association. We have a copy of a check written to Family Court Services Special Fund that was deposited to the LA Superior Court Judges Association. Furthermore, when a request was made to Judge Ouderkirk  for records to be shown, the firm of Collins And Collins jumped in again and sent a response from John Collins himself, denying access to the records because it was a PRIVATE association. Now the same firm is conveniently referring to this organization as a PUBLIC ENTITY.

6. The bottom line here is that all of a sudden Pentoney now has assets (a trust fund for his defense) granted and setup by The County of LA, who is also prosecuting Pentoney for kickbacks and fraud and will have to take into account this new asset when they ask him to repay the taxpayers for his 'free' services of the public defender in the criminal case. Pentoney and all other defendants in this case have registered with the court as in pro per - meaning that they have no attorney and will represent themselves. Bergfeld now represents Pentoney at the last minute. The mere fact of 'Specially Appearing' identifies the in pro per status of the defendant.

On September 7, 1999, Mike Bergfeld filed an EX PARTE Application for a protective Order and Sanctions. On page 1, Bergfeld indicates that he represents 'multiple defendants', but in his sworn statement on Page 6, Bergfeld states that he understands that 'this office will be representing Defendants Alfred Schonbach and the Honorable Richard Denner.' That leaves both of these defendants in default.

Is this screwy or what?

Corruption Continues

9/10/99 - All of the Glendale Municipal Court Judges have been disqualified on this case. All of the hearings in the Glendale Court were Ex Parte and the end result is that, without looking at evidence to be presented, the Glendale Court has granted the LA County lawyer's request to move this case to the LA Superior Court.

You can follow the action here since we have copied the Glendale Municipal Court REGISTER OF ACTIONS as of 9/10/99. (Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4). Some areas to note:

1. Gregory Pentoney is the only one represented by an attorney ('Specially Appearing') - The law Firm of Collins & Collins. All other defendants are in pro per. Alfred Schonbach was served and failed to appear, therefore he is in default on this case. The Court, on its own, on 09/10/99 cancelled the Proof Of Service as being incorrectly addressed, i.e. it was not addressed exactly as 'FAMILY COURT SERVICES SPECIAL FUND A FICTITIOUS ENTITY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD DENNER' This trick, known only to a clever Judge, will not be overlooked in the future. Although Judge Denner was physically served in this case, the court has not recognized this service. The other defendants were not able to be located and were not served.

An amazing feat was accomplished here. Since the file was shipped out on 09/09/99 (as shown in the certified copy of the Register of Actions), it is impossible to remove this Proof Of Service from the file unless it was never placed in the file to begin with. Either way, the court is wide open for either mis-management or collusion. What do you think happened here?

2. Furthermore, since Michael Bergfeld, the attorney who appeared for Gregory Pentoney, has stated under oath that he had never spoken to Pentoney, how can he represent him in court? In fact, being represented by an expensive attorney hired by the County while being prosecuted by the County in a related case is Corruption to the highest degree!

3. But the height of deceit is right here! On August 23,1999, in order to get the case transferred out of the Glendale Court, Mike Bergfeld of Collins & Collins argues that Family Court Services Special fund is a public entity. Apparently the Glendale Court believes him, because he also makes the same declaration under oath. A request was made to Mike Bergfeld to determine who actually hired him in this case and to clarify his position on the public entity 'Family Services Special Fund'. A few days later, John Collins replied refusing the records to this organization because 'there is no Family Services Special Fund' and the 'Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association is a private organization not a public or government organization.' Although many lies tend to become believable when they are oft told, this lie can never become the truth. Who do you believe - Mike Bergfeld or his boss, John Collins?

California Judicial Council Rules

To have a case transferred to another County the Judicial Council of California must intervene and assign the case. Attached to this file is a note, possibly initialed by Judge Simpson's clerk, 'Judge, should we send this case (Muni lit Case) out of County' - and a Bold, Underlined YES - although the Municipal Court has no power to send this case out of county. Was it sent directly to Orange County?

On September 13, Judge Chavez of the LA Superior Court (without benefit of the Legal File) ruled to stay the case pending an assignment of the case out of LA County by the Judicial Council of California.

On September 15, the Judicial Council has apparently ruled. According to a letter from the LA Superior Court, The Council has assigned the case to a Judge (as yet unknown) in the Orange County Court. This is exactly where the firm of Collins & Collins wanted this case to be transferred.

Guess who sits on the Judicial Council of California? None other than John Collins, a Pasadena lawyer. Could this be the same John Collins who heads the law firm of Collins, Collins, Muir & Traver LLP? How about that! The Judicial Council of California recently posted the picture of their new members to include a smiling John Collins. The corruption has now gone full circle.


Top of the Corruption pile


Copyright Design Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Last update 10/16/99