Appellate Division No. 70

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

APPELLATE DIVISION

ANTHONY GROSSMAN No. BV 028930Appellant Van Nuys, Case No. 10B01962

PRO VALUE PROPERTIES, INC.,Appellee

v.JUDGE CHRISTINE EWELL, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Respondent_____________________________________________________________________APPELLANT’S OBJECTION TO ENTIRE PANEL OF JUDGES PRESENTLYASSIGNED TO DEPARTMENT 70 AND REQUEST TO SELF RECUSE PURSUANTTO CANON 3E(3) OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (SELFRECUSAL); DECLARATION OF MARTIN S FRIEDLANDER, ESQ; POINTS &AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF.

MARTIN S FRIEDLANDER, ESQ. State Bar No. 36828ANTHONY C. GROSSMAN, ESQ., State Bar No. 175408

10350 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 603Los Angeles, Ca. 90024

Tel. No. 310 435-1510Fax No. 310 278 7330

Attorney for Appellant ANTHONY GROSSMAN

1

TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE AND ASSOCIATE JUDGES OF THE

APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

I OPENING STATEMENT

A. On May 20, 2011 I personally filed a MOTION to enjoin Judge Christine Ewell from

conducting any conference whatsoever due to lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CRC Rule

8.837 (d)(4). I specifically relied on the pre filing of the record provisions permitting

motions to enable Judge Jewell to defend herself from the disciplinary requests to

accord her the “due process” which she did not accord my client Anthony Grossman. I

requested an immediate stay. After practicing in California since 1965 in the Appellate

Courts of this State I know the difference between a Motion and a Petition for a Writ of

Prohibition. If I wished to file a Petition for a Writ of Prohibition I would have filed one.

She conducted the hearing, without my presence, and was handed this Panel’s Order

of May 24, 2011 denying the Petition and Refusing to do its Required Duty to Report

Judge Jewell and placed the burden on Grossman to do so.

Judge Jewell’s order of Certification specifically referenced that she did not open the

envelope containing my Motion to this Court. I personally marked that envelope

personal and confidential “for Judge Jewell’s eyes” to avoid her any embarrassment of

having the filing clerk open the envelope and make my claims the subject of discussion

among the entire Van Nuys Courthouse. Judge Jewell intentionally refused to open that

envelope even after opposing counsel handed her this Panel’s Order which referenced

her ethical violations. This further evidences my charges against Judge Jewell that she

refused to accord any due process to Mr. Grossman and her personal dislike for me

because I challenged her in a lawful and appropriate manner, in pleadings, and not in

2

open court. She just doesn’t care. This Panel has covered up Judge Jewell’s violations

of law and the Canons by its own actions, which we claim are also violations of due

process and the Canons of Ethics. By converting the Motion to a Writ Proceeding this

court avoided its Judicial Responsibility and in so doing it violated the Canons of Ethics

for which it should self recuse since a litigant is not empowered to file a Motion to

Recuse an Appellate Judge as we would if it was a Trial Judge. “Swept under the Rug”

Instead, this Appellate Panel, against my wishes, converted my motion for an

Injunction and to Require this Panel to cite Judge Jewell to the California Commission

of Judicial Performance, which was a Judicial Duty under the Canons of Ethics cited in

my Motion, to a Petition for a Writ of Prohibition and directed me to file a Complaint to

the Commission. This Panel violated the Canon of Judicial Ethics by converting my

Motion to a Writ Proceeding and evaded their Mandated duty to self report their own

violations and Judge Jewell’s violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

Accordingly, we Request this entire Panel to disqualify themselves pursuant to

Canon 3 (E) (3) of the Code of Judicial Ethics. In that regard I remind this Panel that if

they refuse to disqualify themselves, they will be violating the Canons of Judicial Ethics

which I will report to the Committee, and they will be denying Mr. Grossman “Due

Process of Law” and will commit reversible error, that will entitle Mr. Grossman to file a

Direct Appeal to the Court of Appeal, since it is the Appellate Department that is

committing the error, not a Court of Limited Jurisdiction.

Appellant requests this entire panel to disqualify themselves and assign this entire

appeal to the Court of Appeal to be joined with a pending Appeal in Grossman v

Schloss, B228800 dealing with SLAPP Motions and the error of the Trial Court in not

3

Consolidating the Unlawful Detainer case with the Main Case that Grossman filed. We

have cited that error in our Cross Appeal. The present status of the Appeal in B228800

is that the record has been filed and a Notice was sent that Schloss had to file his

opening brief within 40 days from June 1, 2011. The record in the Pro Value case is

ready to be filed but was held up due to Judge Jewell’s failure to timely Certify a

Statement on Appeal.

B. Our unlawful detainer statutes, which Appellant believes to be unconstitutional, is

the culminating end to a non judicial sale process that has been marked with fraud,

perjury, and other revolting crimes committed by the financial industry against the

homeowners of this nation. The major offenders have signed consent decrees and the

50 State Attorney Generals are pursuing these offenders for financial and other relief

for these tortuous acts.

Homeowners expect, and the law demands, that Judicial Officers, governed by

the Canons of Ethics, exact justice, follow the law, and refrain from just “rubber

stamping” what has preceded the wrongdoing. Judicial officers are required to follow

the same law as the litigants. The judiciary does not get a free ride. If the trial judge

exceeds its authority under the law, that is an abuse of power which has consequences,

such as a “reversal” and a citation to that judicial officer for disciplinary proceedings.

The appellate courts are both empowered and mandated to do that under the law and

under the Canons of Judicial ethics.

The word “must” is mandatory not discretionary. Judge Ewell had no choice but

to comply. Rule 8.387 (f) (1) states that; “If the trial judge does not make any correction

or modifications to the proposed statement under (d) (4) and does not order either the

4

use of an official electronic recording or the preparation of a transcript in lieu of

correcting the proposed statement under (d) (6), the judge “must” promptly certify the

statement.”

The word “promptly” may not be construed to file her own “PROPOSED

STATEMENT ON APPEAL” May 10, 2011. Judge Ewell was mandated to act promptly

from March 28. 2011. Counting the days between March 28, 2011 and May 10, 2011 (a

period of 42 days) Must is defined by the dictionary as “Something that is absolutely

required or indispensable: “ (The Free dictionary) There is no definition of “Must” in

Black’s law Dictionary. There is no definition of “promptly” in Black’s Law Dictionary.

The adverb “promptly” is defined as; “promptly - with little or no delay; "the rescue

squad arrived promptly". Forty Two days is not promptly. Judge Ewell has thus

violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics of California. This will be discussed in the

Memorandum of Law. The CRC does not grant any authority for Judge Ewell to issue

any “PROPOSED STATEMENT ON APPEAL” . Judge Ewell is only given authority to

make “corrections or modifications” to the Appellant’s Proposed Statement. Judge

Jewell waived her right to do so. That “waiver” has consequences. She lost her

jurisdiction to correct or modify.

DECLARATION OF MARTIN S FRIEDLANDER

I, Martin S Friedlander, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the

laws of the State of California, based upon his personal first hand knowledge that the

following facts, not conclusions of law, are true and correct.

1. I am an attorney duly licensed by the State of California since 1965 to practice law in

this state. I have also been licensed by the State of New York since 1963. I have

5

practiced law in the federal courts of California, New Mexico, New York, Mississippi,

and Texas. I have practiced law in the States of New York, Oregon, Arizona, New

Mexico, Texas, and other states either in pro se or pro hac vice status. I have tried over

100 jury and non jury trial in various jurisdictions. I have published opinions in the

appellate courts of California including its Supreme Court, the 9 Circuit and 5 Circuit.th th

2. I am and was the attorney for Grossman in the proceedings before Judge Ewell and

other Judges in this UD case. I tried the UD case as a bench trial due to the fact that we

were wrongfully denied a jury trial, irrespective of Judge Jewell’s contentions. Judge

Jewell may only state facts not conclusions in her statement. She may not “gut” the

appellant’s appeal.

3. All of the facts set forth in the Introduction are true based on my personal knowledge.

4. All of the facts set forth in Plaintiff’s Proposed Statement on Appeal are true based

on my personal knowledge.

5. Judge Ewell was 42 days late in violation of the rules of the CRC. She has not

honored the word “must” nor has she acted “promptly” as the words “must” and

“promptly” are defined by the dictionary.

6. Judge Ewell was the Chief Asst Trial Attorney, Crimes Division, for the US Attorney

office in the USDC for the Central District of California. She served as an assistant US

Attorney appointed by the Bush administration when Bush was President. Judge Ewell

was appointed as a Superior Court Judge by Governor Schwartznegger and not elected

to office. As Chief Assistant US Attorney, and a graduate of Harvard Law School, Judge

Ewell was well versed in California and Federal Procedure, especially trials, both jury

and non jury, and the dignity of the Courts as one of the pillars of American Society and

6

Justice. Most Civil Right cases involving the due process and equal protection clauses

of the 14 amendment are filed and tried in Federal Court under the Civil Rights act.th

7. Appellant’s proposed statement on appeal cites a violation of due process of law by

refusing to conduct a trial with witnesses taking the witness stand. In all my years of

practicing law I have never observed a trial being conducted from the counsel table.

Judge Ewell admits that to be a fact. She cited no rule of court or case supporting this

deviation from standard trial procedure throughout the United States. “She just did it her

way”. Her way is not supported by law or due process.

8. CCP Sec. 1176 (a) mandated Defendant/Appellant to first direct a petition for a Stay

of the judgment pending appeal “to the Judge before who it was rendered. The

judgment was rendered by Judge Ewell who was transferred to another Department in

Van Nuys. I made approximately three telephone calls to Judge Ewell’s courtroom clerk

to ask Judge Ewell when she could set this motion for an Ex-Parte hearing before her

as she was the Trial Judge. I read the code section to Judge Ewell’s clerk, who told me

on two separate occasions that Judge Jewell would not hear the motion for a Stay and

that Grossman should schedule the motion in Dept. P before Judge Shimer, who was

not the Trial Judge. Judge Ewell’s clerk hung up the telephone on me after the last and

final attempt. Judge Ewell, knowingly and willfully refused to follow the Code in order to

avoid exercising her discretion to either deny or grant the Stay on the merits. That was

a total abdication of her duties as a Trial Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior

Court and a violation of her judicial ethics, which is but a “mere” example of Judge

Ewell’s decisions both before, during and after the trial. She absolutely refused to

exercise any discretion, which is the worst abuse of discretion that a Judge can make.

7

9. Grossman then scheduled an ex parte motion before Judge Shimer as directed by

Judge Ewell. In refusing to hear the motion, Judge Shimer apologized to Grossman for

Judge Ewell’s conduct. This conduct by Judge Ewell left Grossman without a remedy in

the Trial Court due to the proper judge refusing to act and another Judge recognizing

that he did not have the power to act.

10. The Writ of Possession was served by the Sheriff and Grossman was forced to

move out on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 leaving him homeless. But for his mother

paying the rent he would be living on the street or in his car as so many thousands are

now doing because of the fraudulent foreclosures now plaguing this country. This

“misconduct” by a judicial officer had terrible consequences. Grossman was required to

file a “fee waiver” in order to file the Notice of Appeal. Grossman’s sole remedy for a

stay of execution pending his appeal from the judgment in the UD action is to seek a

stay from the trial judge. However, the trial judge has refused to hear the motion for

stay, on Petitioner by the Respondent Court.

11. The appellant is Anthony Grossman (“Grossman”), who is the Defendant in that UD

proceeding entitled Pro Value Properties v. Anthony Grossman LASC No. 10B01962

filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Northeast District in Van Nuys (“UD Case”).

Grossman is also an attorney at law licensed to practice before all of the courts of the

State of California, and has associated in as co-counsel to Petitioner’s attorney of

record, Martin S. Friedlander, Esq. Mr. Friedlander is also Grossman’s step-father.

Grossman contends that he is the “owner” of the real property located at 19221

Sherman Way #29, Reseda, CA 91335 (“Subject Property”) notwithstanding the

scurrilous attempts by Loan Servicer, Pro Value, their attorneys, and others to “steal” it

8

from him through an improper and unlawful foreclosure of the Subject Property.

12. The Appellee is Pro Value Properties, Inc. (“Pro Value”), who is the Plaintiff in the

above referenced UD proceedings. Grossman has steadfastly contended that Pro

Value “unlawfully” claims title due to a “rigged” non-judicial trustee’s sale conducted by

Bayview, which is not in the “chain of title.” Title and Standing are the issues in

Grossman v. Bayview and Pro Value v. Grossman. Pro Value took with both actual

and constructive notice and is therefore not a BFP for value, notwithstanding Judge

Ewell’s misstatements to the contrary. There was no court reporter present for these

proceedings and the anticipated dispute between court and counsel as to what

happened; what evidence was admitted and rejected; as well as the inferences to be

raised from the same is now before this appellate court. Judge Jewell and I can never

resolve our differences in the facts. I can only meet fabrication with truth. Fortunately,

Judge Jewell did not comply with the time constraints imposed on her by the California

Rules of Court, and she has lost all jurisdiction to fabricate a Statement on Appeal. Due

to the fact there was no court reporter it is her word against mine and my word is under

oath and hers is not. The law does not permit me to put Judge Jewell on the witness

stand to examine her under oath.

Summary evictions are akin to pre-judgment attachments which have been

declared to be unconstitutional when there is no “prior” hearing. UD actions are

summary in nature where the defendant may not cross-complain with limited abilities to

try title with shortened discovery and trial dates, with witnesses in the State of Florida

where Bayview is located.

13. Prior to trial in the UD case, Grossman sought and was erroneously and improperly

9

denied a jury trial in the action. Therefore, on September 23, 2010, a bench trial

commenced in Dept. P of Respondent Court, before Judge Christine Ewell. Trial

proceeded for three days and completed on September 28, 2010.

14. On October 15, 2010, Judge Ewell issued a proposed statement of decision

following trial, finding judgment for Pro Value. On October 27, 2010, Grossman filed

Objections to the Court’s Proposed Statement of Decision. On November 13, 2010,

Judge Ewell issued a ruling overruling Grossman’s objections to the proposed

Statement of Decision, and issued her final Statement of Decision which was a

codification of the proposed statement of decision. On the same date, and in line with

her statement of decision, Judge Ewell entered judgment in favor of Pro Value and

against Grossman, awarding Pro Value possession of the Subject Property as well as

holdover damages.

16. On December 2, 2010, Pro Value requested and Respondent Court issued a Writ of

Possession in favor of Pro Value and against Grossman for possession of the Subject

Property.

17. We request that this Panel take Judicial Notice of the Motion that I personally filed

on May 20, 2011 so that I do not have to repeat myself herein.

18. At the time I personally filed the MOTION I requested to speak personally to the

Supervising Clerk in Department 70. I even said hello to Judge Gregosian, who issued

the Order denying Grossman a Jury Trial, and was thus automatically disqualified. We

shook hands as gentlemen and we were very cordial to each other even after I

reminded him of his duty to disqualify himself.

19. The Supervising Clerk then came out and she and I reviewed the entire Motion. I

10

pointed out to her that this Panel itself violated the Canons due to the fact they had

personal knowledge of Judge Jewell’s transgressions in refusing to hear Grossman’s

Motion for a Stay of Execution, in violation of the Statute. She made a note on a sticky

and attached it to the page of my motion that referred to my request. I discussed the

entire substance of my motion with her and she made sticky notes and attached them

to my motion. She even noted that she knows me from the past as an appellate lawyer.

She told me that she would bring my concerns to this Panel.

19. On May 26, 2011 Judge Jewell issued a Minute Order that is attached hereto as

Exhibit 1. I direct the Panel’s attention to a Statement of Judge Jewell in the Minute

Order.

“The Court indicates that it is in receipt of an unopened envelope, stamped

received 5-23-2011. The envelope is addressed to “Judge Christine Jewell” from

Martin S Friedlander, Attorney at Law. The Court notes that the envelope is

postmarked 5-20-2011 and has not been opened. In response to the Court’s

statement, counsel for Plaintiff notifies the Court of an Order from the Appellate

Division, case number BV028930 filed on 5-24-2011 by the Defendant.”

20. Judge Jewell does not state that she read this Panel’s Order of 5/24/2011, but the

docket in Van Nuys reflect that the 5/24/2011 order was filed. I can only assume Judge

Jewell read it since it was delivered to her and wound up being filed and docketed.

21. Other than Judge Jewell’s statement that she neither opened my envelope

addressed to her or read it. The envelope was sealed by me with sticky, not paste,

which can be opened and the integrity of the envelope remains in tact. I would wish to

put her under oath and cross examine her on that statement. It also means that Judge

11

Ewell totally ignored the second paragraph of this Panel’s Order of 5/24/2011 about her

alleged “ethical violations” reportable to the Commission. I would have though that

Judge Ewell’s curiosity as a former chief prosecutor would have caused her to open the

envelope to see what ethics charges I raised against her.

22. Then, on May 27, 2011, the day AFTER the hearing on 5/26/2011, Judge Jewell

issued her Order Concerning Appellant’s Proposed Statement on Appeal to which she

attached an “Engrossed Settled Statement on Appeal” (Exhibit 2) This means that

Judge Jewell had an opportunity to open my envelope after the hearing on 5/26/2011

and read my Motion contained therein. I know that she read it because she made a

change to her statement on lines 6-11 of P. 2, since my motion referenced the fact that

she had no personal knowledge due to a different judge hearing the motion. She thus

“covered” all her bases, in further “fabrication” of the true facts. I personally believe that

Judge Jewell is unethical and should have been cited by this Panel to the Commission.

This Panel violated its Mandate under the Canons to report Judge Jewell to the

Commission.

23. I do not believe that my client Grossman will be accorded Due Process of Law if this

Panel does not self-recuse, and thus will be committing Judicial error by a non-limited

court which is directly appealable to the Court of Appeal. I again request this Panel to

Self Recuse and issue an order sending it up to the Court of Appeal.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing testimony is true and correct under

the laws of the State of California.

12

Executed on June 10, 2011 at Los Angeles California

_____________________________

Martin S. Friedlander.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

Judges, especially appellate judges who usually bask in anonymity, are very

much in the news these days. The topic du jour is recusal. No court or judge enjoys a

safe harbor from publicity in this arena. Whether it is the United States Supreme Court,

(1) the federal district bench, (2) a state supreme court, (3) or a county court, (4) public

scrutiny is rigorous. In most cases, the issue is not an actual conflict of interest or a

claim of actual bias, but rather the appearance of potential bias in hearing a case where

a judge's impartiality is perceived to be in doubt. It is an examination of this

circumstance, which is generally cast as "the appearance of impropriety," that prompts

this introduction. In my view, the appearance standard fosters public confidence in the

judiciary and augments judicial independence. Based on this Panel’s conduct as

aforesaid “there is an appearance of impropriety” which requires each of the three

members of the Panel to Self Examine based on the objective test.

I. EVOLUTION OF THE CANONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS

Although the notion of formal canons of ethics for judges in the United States is a

phenomenon of the early twentieth century, the concept of impartiality derives from

ancient law. Under the Roman Code of Justinian, a party who deemed the judge "under

suspicion" was permitted "to recuse him before issue joined, so that the cause go to

13

another." The principle of invoking recusal for "suspicion" of bias was carried through in

disqualification statutes in civil law countries. In the common law system, however, the

buck literally stopped where the judge had a direct financial interest, as that was the

only basis for disqualification. In the United States, since 1792 recusal has been

required where judges have a financial interest in a case or where they previously

served as an attorney.

The first formal judicial ethics code in the United States came about through an

American Bar Association project: the Committee on Judicial Ethics, headed by Chief

Justice Taft. The Canons were adopted in 1924, ironically in response to the conflict

presented by Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis serving both as a federal judge and as

the Commissioner of Baseball while attempting to clean up the Chicago Black Sox

baseball betting scandal. The original thirty-four canons were broad and wide ranging

and included the principle that remains in the code today--a judge should avoid both

impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. With respect to disqualification, the

standard was a subjective one--whether a judge should withdraw in a particular case

was in the eyes of the beholder, the judge.

The first major overhaul of the Canons came in 1972. The admonition to avoid

actual impropriety as well as the appearance of impropriety remained in the Canons,

but the disqualification provision was radically revamped. The standard changed from a

subjective to an objective one, that is whether a judge's "impartiality might reasonably

be questioned." Despite another round of revisions in 1990, the appearance and

disqualification language remained the same. The key change in 1990 was to replace

14

"should" with "shall" to reflect the mandatory nature of the standards.

Today the appearance concept is imbedded in two separate canons. Canon 2 reads,

"A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's

activities." Canon 3E(1) on disqualification provides that "[a] judge "shall disqualify

himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be

questioned."

Canon 3E(1) goes on to list separate instances in which disqualification is

required because of (a) personal bias/prejudice or personal knowledge; (b) prior

service as a lawyer in the matter; (c) economic interest; and (d) close personal

relationship of relatives or parties to a proceeding. For federal judges, virtually the same

restrictions are contained in a federal statute.

For a discussion of the provisions of Canon 3E(1) and related case law, see

generally Leslie W. Abramson, Judicial Disqualification under Canon 3 of the Code of

Judicial Conduct (2d ed. Am. Judicature Socy. 1992). For a discussion of the

relationship between Canons 2 and 3, see U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 113

(D.C. Cir. 2001) ("The District Judge's repeated violations of Canons 3A(6) and 3A(4)

also violated Canon 2"); In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct, 47 F.3d 399, 400 (10th

Cir. Jud. Council 1995) ("The allegations of extra-judicial comments cause the Council

substantial concern under both Canon 3A(6) and Canon 2 of the Judicial Code of

Conduct."). Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927). In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136

(1955).

15

The provisions of Canon 3E also help the public understand the judiciary's

responsibilities. Until recently, justices in California's appellate courts were not bound by

the recusal provisions of the Canons. As the California Supreme Court stated when

adopting the provisions for appellate justices,

[t]he new provisions spell out in greater detail for the benefit

of the courts and the public the consideration a justice of the

Supreme Court or the Courts of Appeal should take into account

in determining whether he or she should recuse or disqualify

himself or herself from deciding or hearing a matter.

See Ignazio J. Ruvolo, California's Amendment to Canon 3E of the Code of

Judicial Conduct Requiring Self-Recusal of Disqualified Appellate Justices--Will it be

Reversible Error not to Self-Recuse? 25 Thomas Jefferson L. Rev. 529, 540 (2003)

A. Judge Jewell’s violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

The Preamble to the Canons of Judicial Ethics states that: “Our legal system is

based on the principle that an independent, fair, and competent judiciary will interpret

and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American

concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to this code are the precepts that

judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a

public trust and strive to enhance an maintain confidence in our legal system. The

judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible

member of government under the rule of law.”

The Preamble further states that: “The Code governs the conduct of judges and

16

judicial candidates and is binding upon them. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate,

and the degree of discipline to be imposed, requires a reasoned application of the text

and consideration of such factors as the seriousness of the transgression, whether

there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or

on the judicial system.”

The effect of Judge Jewell’s improper activity was to cause the Sheriff to execute

on the Writ of Possession and forcibly remove Anthony Grossman from his home. The

effect of this panel’s denial of the writ was to permit Judge Ewell’s unlawful activities to

be enforced by the Sheriff. The failure of this panel’s not citing Judge Ewell to the

Commission was to permit this pernicious Judge to remain sitting on the bench in Van

Nuys as a judicial officer, with the imprimatur of this appellate panel. The message sent

to this Judge Ewell was that she “got away with it and will continue to get away with it.”

This is not the message that the judiciary should transmit to our citizens.

All we requested was that this panel or a panel of the Court of Appeal cite this

Judge Ewell and this panel to the Commission for investigation and the imposition of

discipline, if any. It failed to do so. We have strong doubts that this panel is not impartial

and therefore cannot accord Grossman the required procedural due process of judicial

review of the Trial Court’s errors of law and fact. This Panel “passed the buck” and

refused to do its duty. That satisfies the objective test of impropriety and bias. The

message sent by this Panel to the Undersigned is that it is merely a “Rubber Stamp” of

eviction judgments. AG Kamala Harris has commenced an investigation of foreclosure

and eviction improprieties according to her Public Press Releases. We have

17

FORECLOSURE AND EVICTIONS RUN WILD that has destroyed the fabric of

California society. Grossman seeks vindication and I seek both vindication and

discipline.

CANON 1

A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE

JUDICIARY. On several occasions I told Judge Ewell’s Clerk that Judge Ewell should

not permit the “contract” eviction attorneys to sit in the “jury box” as that conveys the

impression to the poor and uneducated that the lawyers suing them will be members of

the jury. If there is no room for these “contract attorneys” to sit, then proper

arrangements should be made.

Over my strenuous objection Judge Ewell conducted a “bench” trial from the

counsel table. She has admitted this fact. There is no rule of law to permit such a

transgression from hundreds of years of jury trials in this country and England where

the common law derived. This practice deviated from every rule of law in the United

States. Judge Ewell was not empowered to set up her own “convenient” system. This is

a trial not an arbitration. It diminishes the public confidence in the judicial and impaired

me, Grossman’s counsel” to give him my best defense. Judge Ewell cited no rule or

practice to support her “convenience” The law is set up for the public and not for the

convenience of the judiciary.

CANON 2

A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF

IMPROPRIETY IN ALL THE JUDGE’S ACTIVITIES.

18

She showed a complete disrespect for the law. To an outside observer and to a

Trained Litigator such as the undersigned who has tried cases in many jurisdictions

throughout the United States, gave me the impression that these were the very acts by

the Judiciary that were being tried and condemned in Nuremberg after WWII. My

stepson is a lawyer, not a piece of human trash. These acts of Judge Ewell soured

Mr. Grossman that he has expressed to me that he wishes to quit because there

is no justice if Judges like Judge Ewell are permitted to dispense injustice. My

stepson needs to be reassured that our justice system is alive and well and not

just an aberration as to Judge Jewell.

CANON 3

A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE

IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY.

(B) (1) A judge shall hear and decided all matters assigned to the judge except those in

which he or she is disqualified. She was required to hear the motion for the Stay of

Execution. She refused. Violation. She was never diligent when it required the Judge

to act. She totally disregarded the Rules in that regard.

(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law regardless of partisan interests, public clamor,

or fear of criticism, and shall maintain professional competence in the law. A bench trial

from counsel table is a violation. Must means must and not to satisfy her convenience

Promptly means immediately and not when she gets around to doing it. If UD cases

are to be handled in an expedited manner, the Judge is equally responsible to expedite.

19

(3) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge. Bench

trials at counsel table over the objection of defense counsel, is neither decorum or

order. Telling defense counsel to “shoosh” and to preclude defense counsel from

objecting or putting the lie to the bench is neither order or decorum. A judge

manufacturing facts such as “notice and an opportunity to be heard” is professional

misconduct to cover up her judicial error when pointed out to her on several occasions.

(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses,

lawyers, et al. She was not courteous to me by telling me to “shoosh” “to sit down and

be quiet” to prevent me from presenting an argument when she “sua sponte” made

orders after the 3 party witnesses filed objections, not motions. She lied when sherd

stated that she gave “notice and an opportunity to be heard” to cover up her

misconduct.

(7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a

proceeding...full right to be heard.” She denied me that right throughout her “sham” trial.

(8) A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently. A judge

shall manage the courtroom in a manner that provides all litigants the opportunity to

have the matter fairly adjudicated in accordance with the law.” She violated each and

every of those provisions. She refused to hear the motion to stay execution; she

refused to adjudicate the constitutional defenses; she did not act promptly where the

rule called for prompt; She did not obey Must where the rule called for must. She

continues to assert jurisdiction over this case when she lost jurisdiction by not obeying

20

the word must and promptly.

THE FOLLOWING CANON APPLIES TO THIS APPELLATE PANEL

Canon 3 (D)(1) provides that: “Whenever a judge has reliable information that another

judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or

initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the

appropriate authority.”

This court had reliable sworn testimony that Judge Ewell had violated the Code

of Judicial Ethics had a duty to take appropriate corrective action including reporting the

misconduct to the appropriate authority. This Panel did not do its duty. We want

attorney fees, damages, costs and a publication of this decision for guidance to other

judicial officers of their duties under the unlawful detainer statute. People in this county

are being thrown out of their houses due to fraudulent foreclosure and eviction judges

who “don’t give a damn” in rubber stamping evictions so that the fraudulent buyers can

use the eviction process to carry out their illegal activities with the imprimatur of “rubber

stamp” judges. We seek the ban of the use of “contract attorneys” to prosecute UD

cases. The counsel of record should not be permitted to delegate that duty to others.

Judge Ewell should have been cited to the Commission as this panel had full

knowledge of her transgressions. This Panel should have cited itself to the Commission

as the Petition for Writ of Mandate fully disclosed to this panel Judge Ewell’s refusal to

carry out her judicial duties by refusing to hear the motion for a Stay of Execution. Then

this Court should cite itself to the Commission for not issuing an OSC or a Writ

commanding a hearing on the motion for a stay of execution.

21

This Panel has a duty to disqualify itself. One of the judges is disqualified

since he sat as a trial judge in the proceedings below and we contend that he

committed reversible error by not granting a jury trial.

This Panel has a duty to reject the “Engrossed Settled Statement on

Appeal” filed by Judge Jewell on 5/27/2011 as she was without jurisdiction to

render it as the Order was time barred. Failure to reject it would be reversible

error. Failure to self recuse would be reversible error. Failure to certify

Grossman’s Proposed Statement on Appeal would be reversible error.

In Caperton v A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009) the United

States Supreme Court was so sickened by the outrageous conduct of a Supreme Court

Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court that it vacated a decision of Justice

Benjamin for receiving a $3 million campaign contribution from the CEO of Massey Coal

to avoid a $50 million liability of Massey Coal to Caperton on the grounds of violation of

procedural due process of law under the 14 Amendment. This is the same Masseyth

Coal that was responsible for the coal mine collapse in West Virginia causing many

deaths of miners a few years ago.

CONCLUSION

This Panel must self recuse itself. We suggest that this appeal be sent up to the

Court of Appeal where it may be joined with the pending appeal in the wrongful

foreclosure case.

22

DATED: June 10, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

______________________

Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.10350 Wilshire Blvd.,Suite 603Los Angeles, Ca. 90024(310) 435 1519Attorney for Anthony Grossman, Esq.

23