The Story The Issues The Litigation Related More Info Forums Blog Contact Dockets
The Story The Issues The Litigation Related More Info Forums Blog Contact Dockets

Web Site Under Construction

List of Reasons Why the VL Order

was a Total Perversion of Justice

Los Angeles County Probate Court Judge Robert M. Letteau, in 1995, issued an order under Calif.Civ.Proc.Code, sec. 391.7 ("vexatious litigant" ("VL") statute) which was the first of a remarkable series of injustices.  

This web site is intended to document these injustices.  

The VL order was a total perversion of justice as follows:

1.  The order is illogical based on the nature of my petition.   A "vexatious litigant" uses litigation as a weapon for harassing someone.  However, my petition for division of trust had the exact opposite purpose.  My petition was for the purpose of GETTING AWAY from City National - the very opposite of harassing them.

2.  I had never before litigated against City National - so there was certainly no prior history of harassment against them. (I had litigated against one of the trust beneficiaries - but that had nothing to do with City National.)

3.  Every litigation I've filed has had merit (except for one - which I immediately dismissed upon realizing my mistake) and each was pursued in good faith, in good form, and with civility (unlike most of the lawyers attacking me).   I have consistently maintained the utmost respect for the honor and dignity of the courts.  For more than 30 years I've been a professional reference librarian with one of the nation's largest public library systems.  As a public servant, my mission is to provide helpful and accurate information to the public.  Although I am not - and never was - a lawyer, I've also tried to be professional in regard to litigations I was unfortunately drawn into through the years.  Every one of my court filings was in proper procedural form.  Every citation was carefully Shepardized and was believed to truly stand for the proposition for which it was cited.

4.   City National's motion was a betrayal by City National of its own raison d'etre as trustee.   I am the trust beneficiary and City National the trustee.  "The trustee has a duty to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries." (California Probate Code Sec. 16002(a)).  The beneficiaries of this trust have no legal interest in actual property of the trust.   Their interests in the trust consists entirely of the RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE TRUST.   City National's VL motion was specifically to strip a beneficiary of his right to enforce the terms of trust .  What greater betrayal of its mission as trustee is there than this?. City National is a "freak trustee" by aggressively attacking its own beneficiary. City National defies its own very nature as trustee. A trustee who aggressively attacks its own beneficiary- having him blacklisted and unable to exercise his right to enforce the trust- having sanctions imposed upon him which forces him into

bankruptcy- and who extravagantly wastes trust money to pay teams of lawyers to do

all this- is not normal (or legal). City National violates Probate Code§ 16002. And by

acting as agent for three beneficiaries to attack one unpopular beneficiary (me) violates

Probate Code §16003. Not to mention other breaches of trust- taking expenses only out

of current income instead of apportioning this between principal and income - making

monthly payments of income to its "favored" beneficiaries although by the terms of the

trust it has no discretion to do so- depriving at least two beneficiaries (myself and one of


5.  Treacherous change of position by City National.  I was invited by City National to file my petition for division of trust.   I did so in propria persona (relying on the assurances there would be no opposition).  However, after I filed it, City National hired a team of expensive attorneys who racked up enormous fees for unnecessary pretrial rigmarole (the fees for which came out of my trust income).  Then, on the eve of trial, they turned around and filed their VL motion.

6.  I had not lost five litigations in the previous seven years.  I was actually praised by judges during previous California court litigations.  In two litigations (against a trust beneficiary - not against City National) I achieved, in propria persona, two appellate Court reversals of wrongful orders.  And, in an earlier case, I was praised by 9th Circuit Judge Dorothy Nelson at the conclusion of oral argument.  The opinion in that case was published in Federal Reporter and has been cited in opinions across the United States.  I was also praised by Judge Arthur M. Greenwald in subsequent proceedings.

7. My "inquisitorial motion" - the chief basis for the order - was not frivolous or "bizarre" (as it was described by Judge Letteau).  Its purpose was to reduce the unnecessary litigation expenses for everyone involved.  (This may be considered bizarre by people who believe that the purpose of our court system is to enrich the lawyer industry rather than to serve the public.)

8.  The prerequisite finding for the order was never made.   A threshold issue for the order was whether or not there was reasonable probability that my petition would be granted.  In other words, was there good cause for division of trust.  No cases addressed the issue of what constitutes good cause for division of trust.  The Law Revision Commission provides guidelines.  The grounds I asserted in my petition fell squarely within those guidelines.  Mine was a prima facie case which required taking evidence to rebut.  However not one word was stated at the hearing regarding this issue.  Five years later the bankruptcy court held a five day hearing on this exact issue.  Obviously there was a reasonable probability of good cause for division of trust according to the bankruptcy court.


9.  My right to appeal the order was sabotaged by Judge Letteau.  A reversal of the probate court order should have resulted from my appeal.  However, at the hearing, Judge Letteau ordered his clerk to send a minute order to the Judicial Council so that I would not be allowed to appeal (being already blacklisted before I could appeal the very order causing me to be blacklisted).

10. The consequences of the order led to further injustices.

a.  Upon Judge Letteau's invitation, City National filed a motion under CCP sec. 128.5.  Judge Letteau granted the motion and ordered sanctions in the amount of  $ 39,873.56

b.   Bankruptcy Court

c.   US District Court

d.   9th Circuit Court of Appeal

11.  California's so-called "vexatious litigants" statute ("VLS" - CCP 391 et seq) is contrary to public policy.

12.  The VLS is in conflict with the US Constitution as follows:

      a.  Equal protection

      b.  Due process

      c.  Vagueness

      d.  8th Amendment