ScamJudges.com LLC

                                                                                 Introduction


    School children in the United States are taught that they live in the "land of the free and brave." This is
partially a misperception. Beginning with the Middle-Eastern detainees being held in tiger cages at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba subjected to torture techniques (somehow) licensed and sanctioned by the United States
Government. To the Civil Rights movement in the United States where up until the 1960's people were
arrested and jailed for such infractions as registering black people to vote. The contradiction between the
perception of freedom and the reality has at times even recently been vast.

   The aforementioned is just a brief summary of the injustices perpetrated in the so called "land of the free
and brave" that were largely upheld by the so called protectors of freedom - the state and federal judiciary of
the United States - scam judges of their own time and now.

  Though my grievance primary stems from a civil case in the Los Angeles Superior Court - nonetheless, for
purposes of this website a judge who lies, is incompetent, biased, lazy, or maybe just dumb or a combination
of any of the former is committing a grave injustice to the public and s/he is a Scam Judge.


                                                       The Scam Judges

  Topping my personal list of Scam Judges are the justices of Division 4 of the 2nd Appellant District of the
California Court of Appeal - namely Judge Nora M. Manella  and her cohorts Judge Steven C. Suzukawa  and
Judge Thomas L. Willhite.













                                                       
  Judge Nora Manella








Judge Thomas Willhite                                                                                                                   Judge Steven Suzukawa


                                                                              The Scam

    Now for the scam perpetrated by these so called "Justices." My grandmother willed to my mom one side of a duplex that
she lived in and owned. The other side was owned by my uncle. At one time all parties were in agreement as to the future
ownership of the property, after my grandmother died my mom paid the
property taxes and insurance expenses accruing to
this property while my uncle continued to promise he would add my mom to the deed as previously agreed. Though my uncle
did reimburse my mom for his
1/2 of the property taxes that was the last promise he kept,  as time went on he began to look
for a way to take my mom's side of the duplex and eventually he found one.

   Though this website should really be called scum-bag family members, at this point the conduct of the judiciary is far more
important than the actions of my distant uncle - as the court has the sole responsibility and obligation of upholding the law.
This case should have been very simple and is rather straight forward. My uncle claims the
deed to the duplex granted him a
joint tenancy in my grandparent's side of the duplex even though only my Grandparent's are expressly identified as "Joint
tenants" in the body of the deed as required by law.

    It should also be noted that my Grandparent's purchased this duplex for my uncle, to which he used his 1/2 as a rental
property while my mom lived with and cared for my grandmother during her last years, so as far as "fairness" goes I don't
think my uncle has a strong prima-facie case that my Grandmother's wish to give her 1/2 of the property to my mom was
unfair.

     For unknown reasons the Probate Judge -
Judge Grey of Torrance, California denied my mom's probate petition without
explanation. He just simply issued a minute order that denied the petition - I don't know if he was just dumb, was having a bad
day or what but he never explained his ruling. Okay, so it was off to the California Court of Appeal. I thought surely, the
Judges on the court of Appeal must conduct themselves more professionally than their lower court peer - Wrong.

    A prime example of the character of the individuals involved in this case would have to be the Mediator chosen by the
Court of Appeal - Lecia Shorter. Before Ms. Shorter was
disbarred for misappropriating client funds a Federal Judge put it
best when he said people like Shorter make the legal profession look "worse than used car salesmen."

    The collective knowledge of the Court of Appeal - espoused by Judge Manella who wrote the majority opinion, denied my
mom's petition on completely false assertions and incorrect interpretations of the law. The communal intelligence of the
California Court of Appeal is exhibited below concerning the deed in this case:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
We note first the obvious, viz., that the instrument is entitled “JOINT TENANCY GRANT DEED.”  These words appear at the
top of the deed in a font significantly larger than any found elsewhere in the document.  This supports respondent’s
interpretation that the deed was intended to create a joint tenancy among the grantees.
 The fact that the preprinted
words “AS JOINT TENANTS” closely follow the handwritten listing of Walter and Ann Nitowski does not indicate a contrary
intent.  It is clear that the form provided insufficient space between the name of the grantor and the preprinted words to list all
of the grantees before the term “AS JOINT TENANTS,” thus necessitating the placement of Frederick and Gwen’s names
below those of Walter and Ann.
Appellant contends that the preprinted joint tenancy language must be read as referring only to Ann and Walter.  Appellant’s
contention is inconsistent with her claim that the parties intended to “provide for a joint tenancy as between the spouses of
each of the two married couples, but a tenancy in common as to the two couples.”  A clear and explicit grant of a tenancy in
common as between the couples, but a joint tenancy as to each couple, would have included the words “as joint tenants” a
second time, after Frederick and Gwen’s name.  It did not.  Appellant’s reasoning fails to overcome the reasonable inference
-- that the joint tenancy grant was not limited to Walter and Ann -- which arises from the title, “JOINT TENANCY GRANT
DEED,”
and from the impossibility of fitting the four names on the line before the term, “AS JOINT TENANTS.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------

    Unfortunately, these "justices" feel it is permissible for someone to break their promises and take something which was not
given to them by illogically asserting that the size of the Caption and the "perceived" lack of space justifies my uncle stealing
a property by way of his hidden intentions to create a Joint Tenancy.

     I do not believe the judges of division 4 are honest and I do not believe my mom received a fair hearing. To call these
judges and their court anything less than a scam would be to imbue this court with a credibility it is not entitled to. This
abomination of Justice earns Judge Manella and her elk Willhite and Suzukawa the designation of Scam Judges:

























                                                                             Judge Nora Manella





                                        







Judge Thomas Willhite                                                                                                                       Judge Steven Suzukawa