(PRWEB) November 22, 2011
Marosi files with District Attorney, Jeffrey Rosen, a criminal complaint against four members of the Santa Clara Judiciary concerning case #211SC008015-20, #211SC008068.
On August 2009, Gilbert Marosi contracted with Carlos Porras, the owner of Canapo Gallery in Carmel, to consign forty paintings. According to court documents, in November, 2010, Porras sold two paintings for $5,000 but refused to pay the commission. Marosi sued Porras in Palo Alto Small Claims Court in February, 2010 (case # 211SC006880).
Over a year later, on June 2010, with the cases still not closed, Marosi filed seven new small Claims cases #211SC008015-20, # 211SC008068 in the Palo Alto Small Claims court naming three other defendants who allegedly conspired with Porras. Madden, as alleged in Court Documents, angry at Marosi filing those cases, called for a prefiling hearing on July 8, 2011.
According to court documents, at that hearing Madden declared Marosi a vexatious litigant and sent a pre-filing order to the Vexatious litigant supervisor. However, the order was allegedly tampered. See “Prefiling Order.pdf”. Marosi was listed on September 2011 as vexatious litigant in The Vexatious Litigant list site in San Francisco.
According to court documents filed with complaint, Marosi then sent a letter to the supervisor of the vexatious litigant office, Brad Campbell, requesting him to delete Marosi’s name from the list since it is Marosi's opinion that the order was allegedly tampered. According to court documents, Campbell ignored the request. Tampering of an official document is a criminal misdemeanor under California penal code 141.
As alleged in court documents, Marosi then filed a motion concerning cases #211SC008015-20, # 211SC008068 with the Palo Alto Small Claims Court on August 22 to reverse the vexatious litigant order since Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subd. (b)(1) excludes small claims from the statute. Maddden refused to hear the motion.
Then Marosi sent a total of eight letters to Presiding Judge of Santa Clara County, Richard Loftus who, as presiding Judge can reverse Madden’s decision.
Please view the attached Judge Loftus’s reply concerning cases #211SC008015-20, #211SC008068, “loftus letter comp.pdf”. It is Marosi's opinion that Loftus stated in substance that Madden was right in declaring him a vexatious litigant and he would not, and could not reverse that decision since it was final by statute.
Marosi's opinion of Judge Loftus's statements is that they are false since Madden's decision to declare Marosi vexatious is allegedly illegal and violates ccp 391 which states small claims are excluded. Also, any decision by a judge allegedly can be appealed by law and a presiding judge has the power to overrule a commissioner.
The decisions made by Loftus in his letter fall within the province of California Penal Code as follows: Abuse of power (California Penal Code 39.02); Obstruction of justice (California penal code 96.5). Marosi alleges that Loftus denies Marosi due process which is obstruction of Justice and abuse of power.
Then Marosi filed a criminal complaint concerning above cases with Santa Clara County Assistant DA John Chase, the head of the corruption unit. In that complaint he accused Madden, Loftus and Campbell of violations of the California Penal Code Section 115.i:e 21 altered and illegal document filed by Commissioner Madden which may be prosecuted against him and Judge Loftus as a separate offense; abuse of power (California Penal Code 39.02); obstruction of justice (California penal code 96.5); Loftus and Bradley being accessories after the fact.
According to court documents, Chase, upon a cursory examination of the charges which allegedly show evidence of violations of the penal code, it is Marosi's opinion that he decided against all reason that the charges were groundless. See attachment: “chase emails.doc”.
In emails sent by Chase to Marosi concerning cases #211SC008015-20, #211SC008068 documented in the complaint sent to DA Rosen, he stated that Madden misinterpreted the statutes and that it was not a crime; Also that CCP391 in one section stated small claims were excluded and in another section included; And that Loftus allegedly was right in backing up Madden. At this point it is Marosi's opinion that that Chase is covering up for Madden, Loftus and Campbell.
This is why Marosi filed an additional complaint against Assistant DA Johns Chase’s superior, District Attorney, Jeffrey Rosen, concerning cases #211SC008015-20, # 211SC008068 to further investigate these alleged criminal complaints and prosecute the guilty parties. Also, Marosi filed a complaint concerning cases #211SC008015-20, # 211SC008068 against Loftus and Madden with the Commission for judicial performance, see attached “Complaint Against a California Judge”.