Violations of Laws/Rights – Page 3

August 10, 2023January 22, 2024

Fourth ORIM Claim Filed! This One is Also Against FTB Board of Directors and Executives for Refusing to Disclose Policy and Procedure Regarding Payments That Are Supposed to be Immediately Applied.

Quick background: Every government employee is required to take an Oath and to have an insurance policy or bond. ORIM is the insurance agency for State of California employees. For those of you who are looking to file your own claims, here is info on how to do so. Before you order an oath, check to see if I already have it posted. If you would like some models to follow, here is the first, and second and third claims that I’ve filed.

I was excited about the third ORIM claim that I filed, and I am even more excited about this fourth claim! I have Accused fifteen individuals from four different agencies of violating my rights under California Right R&TC Section 21006(b)(2), for violating 18 USC §1001 (a)(1) by refusing to disclose FTB’s policies and procedures regarding exactly when payments that are supposed to be applied immediately upon receipt are actually applied, and for violating 18 US Code 242 by not allowing me full and free access of information in accordance with my rights, which is a Class A misdemeanor.

August 1, 2023November 3, 2024

Oaths & Salary Info for BAR, BOE, DOF, DGS, DOJ, FTB, GovOps, OLC, OTA, SCO, State Assembly, State Senate, and Superior Court Employees

A previous post explains the importance of Oaths and Bonds/Insurance, how order Oaths and proof of Bonds/Insurance, and what to do if you find an Oath/Bond violation. A more recent post gives more info on the how it appears the California State government may be illegitimate due to the lack of bonds/insurance.

I am slowly but steadily uploading all the Oaths that I have collected and linking to their salary information. If you are looking for a particular person’s Oath, check below to see if I already have it. If a name is listed but the Oath has not yet been uploaded, ping me and I’ll get it uploaded ASAP. Check back periodically because I have more Oaths ordered that will hopefully arrive soon.

California BAR Association (BAR) (Fun fact: BAR stands for British Accreditation Registry)

Henderson, Robert Jr:. Unexecuted Oath of Allegiance; No insurance; Authorities Notified

Horton-Billard, Cecilia: Unexecuted Oath of Allegiance; No Insurance; Authorities Notified

Kim, Roy: Oath of Allegiance

Harvey, Mark: Oath of Allegiance

Wallerstein, Lori: Oath of Allegiance

California Board of Equalization (BOE)

July 30, 2023September 11, 2024

How to Order Oaths and Report Oath Violations — Oath Violations May Have HUGE Impacts!

The explosive information is in the last paragraph. I am also working on uploading all of the Oaths that I have collected. A more recent post gives more info on the how it appears the California State government may be illegitimate due to the lack of bonds/insurance.

September 2024 update: you can apparently also email Complaints to the military at saf.ighotline@us.af.mil

Requesting Oaths

Lately, I have been trying to combat government corruption by filing insurance claims against State Employees. But I haven’t given up on filing Federal Criminal Complaint (FCC); I’ve just put FCCs on the back burner for now.

David Myrland was right: The tax man does own the court system. California law says that on tax matters, jury trials are forbidden. Now I understand why that statute was enacted. “The system” can’t control a jury like they do judges. I am so tired of the games built into “the system” to ensure that the government is never held accountable for their crimes against constituents.

I’ve decided that the next FCC that I (eventually) file will be against all the other agencies who are protecting FTB’s schemes: FTB’s Board of Directors, who knowingly allow these schemes to continue; the three Office of Tax Appeals judges and Superior Court judge who covered up FTB’s unlawful activities in my court cases against FTB; and the people at the Bar Association who won’t prosecute the lawyers who committed crimes to protect FTB.

In preparation for the FCC filing, I needed to order the Oaths for everyone who will be charged in the FCC so that I can add Treason of Oath to the list of crimes. Here is a sample letter, which in which I requested both oaths and bonds.)

Per federal law, every elected or appointed government official must sign an Oath of Office. Per California law, all other government employees are required to take an Oath of Allegiance prior to beginning employment. The law also states that the State must issue an insurance policy or bond on every government employee. Under the California Public Records Request Act (CPRA), which is Gov. Code 7920.54(a), the agencies have to turn over copies of these documents upon request. CPRA is California’s version of FOIA.

July 7, 2023July 16, 2024

FTB’s Response to My 2022 Annual Taxpayer Bill of Rights Requests

As is required under Revenue and Taxation Code (RTC) 21006(a)(2), every year, the Franchise Tax Board allows the general public to make requests for changes to laws, policies and/or procedures that pertain to FTB.

I participated in the December 2022 meeting by submitting a set of requests in writing on November 29, 2022 and an oral request of the same items at the meeting held on December 8, 2022. Here is the video of my speech from my perspective:

The full FTB Board meeting is here. My speech is from 14:25 – 19:46.

On January 31, 2023, FTB provided a written response to my request. For Item #4, they stated “FTB will provide you with a supplemental response by February 28, 2023, or sooner.”

On February 2, 2023, I sent my own response to FTB’s written response. In it, I stated:

July 1, 2023August 29, 2024

Update on the California Bar Association Complaint Against Deputy Attorney General Anna Barsegyan

Quick summary of what has happened with the Bar so far regarding Anna Barsegyan:

On November 18, 2021, I filed a Bar Complaint against Anna Barsegyan for harassment and retaliation. The Bar refused to open an investigation into the Complaint on the basis that, since there was a judge on the case, the Bar was absolved of its responsibilities to provide oversight of Ms. Barsegyan.

In December 2022, I filed another Bar Complaint against Anna Barsegyan. There were a slew of new charges, including conspiring to commit suborning perjury (in layman’s terms this means setting someone up as a patsy) and advising her client to break federal and state laws in order to hide evidence of criminal activity from the court. This time, the Bar sent a letter stating “Your recent correspondence presents no new evidence which would merit reopening your complaint.”

I had a back and forth email conversation with Bar employee Roy Kim, in which I stated “… I filed the new complaint, which contained many new allegations against Ms. Barsegyan that had not been included in the original complaint #21-O-14331.

…I found this denial letter to be disturbingly vague. It appears to me that you are trying to sweep these new — and very serious — allegations under the rug by pretending that I never made them.

I request that the Complaint submitted on December 19, 2022 to be treated as new Complaint, that a new file is opened for this new Complaint, that a proper investigation be done regarding ALL charges presented in the new Complaint…”

The Bar responded by agreeing to open a new Complaint.

June 24, 2023July 1, 2023

Updates on the Insurance (Bond) Claims That I’ve Filed Against CA DOJ and FTB

My first Insurance (Bond) Claim against FTB employee Grace LeBleu and CA DOJ employee Anna Barsegyan was denied on the grounds that the conspiracy to expose my and my husband’s social security numbers happened more than a year ago.

On April 20, 2023, I filed a revised claim against Michelle M. Mitchell (claim and evidence below). She is the Coordinating Supervisor in the California Department of Justice’s Public Records Department, who violated California Government Code Section 1460 by refusing to furnish Barsegyan’s bond/insurance information. She also committed fraud by telling me that the laws requiring all California employees to be bonded or insured did not exist. I believe that this outright fraud was intended to stop me from exercising my right to file a claim against Barsegyan/LeBleu, which takes my claim against her beyond a civil matter to a criminal matter: the DOJ has violated 18 US Criminal Code section §1001 and 18 USC §241.

March 21, 2023August 15, 2024

FTB Has Disclosed Penalties Are Being Falsely Imposed Due to FTB’s Customer Service Failures

At the board meeting on March 28, 2023, FTB is going to ask for $25.23 million more dollars so they can hire more customer service agents and give raises to existing agents. To justify this request, FTB just released the following data:

54% of live chats go unanswered (page 3)
Correspondence sent via USPS is processed within 4 – 5 months (page 3)
Correspondence sent via MyFTB is processed within 30-days (page 8)
Only 40% of calls are answered (page 12)
FTB also disclosed that they have very high attrition rates for people who work in customer service. They attribute it to low pay and it being a stressful job (page 11).

In the document FTB admits that people were having penalties falsely imposed due to lack of customer service. The document doesn’t admit that they falsely impose wage garnishments, levies and liens, but it is implied with words such as “moved into involuntary collections.”

March 11, 2023

The California Bar Association Refused to Acknowledge New Allegations Made Against Deputy Attorney General Anna Barsegyan

I know I shouldn’t be surprised because the Bar’s response lines up with pretty much all of the other agencies/legislators that I have talked to: pretend I never brought these matters to their attention.

I neglected to mention that I had filed a Complaint against Anna Barsegyan back in 2021, and the Bar Association had refused to deal with the Complaint. I will try to dig up and post the first Complaint and Bar’s response letter.

The Bar Association’s response to the Complaint I filed against Barsegyan in December 2022 was short and terse. A copy of the letter is here, and this quote summarizes the contents: “Your recent correspondence presents no new evidence which would merit reopening your complaint. Based on our prior review, the decision to close the file will stand.”

I called the Bar Association out on their mishandling of this Complaint. A scan of the full email is thread is here, and here is an excerpt:

December 29, 2022April 16, 2023

The Judge’s Verdict in the SDSC Case Was Blatantly Corrupt

Last year, I posted a video of a legal scholar named Dave Myrland who talked about how the tax man owns the court. I also wrote an article about how the legal system has been hijacked by government agencies who are unlawfully extracting extra revenue for their agencies. In my first appeal of penalties, interest and fees, I saw that the Office of Tax Appeal judges covered up the Franchise Tax Board’s bona fide criminal activities with an extremely deceptive and evasive verdict. It was no surprise when it happened again in the San Diego Superior Court case.

The biggest red flag that the case was rigged against me was that the judge denied an extension of the final hearing date. On January 23, 2022, my father got sick with a MRSA staph infection. He died on February 7. On February 18, FTB and I filed a stipulation to continue the hearing until September. The judge denied the stipulation on March 1. Since I thought the extension was a done deal, I focused on burial arrangements, moving my father’s belongings out of his apartment, probate, etc. When I found out the extension was denied, I only had 10 days to complete and file the extensive paperwork that was due. A paralegal of 23 years told me that she has never before seen a judge deny a hearing extension when both sides stipulated. And the fact that the denial took so long was suspicious.

Here is the tentative ruling, which was issued the day before the trial. He threw out the majority of the documents/evidence that I had submitted on the grounds of technical violations. The Opposition to FTB’s Motion for Sanctions exceeded the page limit and my Opposition to Summary Judgment was missing a table of contents and an authentication. He could have ordered me to re-submit these items and extend the hearing date, but he chose not to.

Just like with The OTA case, the judge refused to acknowledge the existence of FTB’s questionable business practices and refused to address the laws that I cited that proved that these business practices were unlawful. He also refused to acknowledge that the arguments the DOJ made were based on lies and deception, and that FTB had committed multiple counts of perjury and had improperly withheld and redacted documents to hide evidence. Likewise, the judge refused to acknowledge that the DOJ had posted my husband’s and my social security numbers online. If I had done the things that FTB/DOJ had done, the judge would have thrown me in jail. And yet for FTB/DOJ, he just pretended as if none of it had happened.

In the oral arguments, I asked the judge to amend his ruling. Here is the summary of the oral arguments:

December 28, 2022December 28, 2022

Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SUFs)

For the Motion for Summary Judgement, I had to resubmit the evidence that I had already submitted in a different format. This format is easier to understand and follow. While it was tedious to put together, this format makes the evidence damning. FTB’s assorted schemes and the mechanisms of how the schemes are perpetrated are obvious, so hopefully other people can use the SUFs as a guide to find the fraud in their own records.

Unfortunately, I forgot to attach an exhibit list when I submitted it. The judge threw out all of the evidence because of no exhibit list, and I lost my case because the case didn’t stand without evidence. I asked if I could submit an exhibit list. The judge said no. I asked if I could use FTB’s evidence, as most of my evidence was the same as FTB’s. The judge said no.

Highlights of Key Information in Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SUF)