top of page

Legal Malpractice case against Elaine Etingoff, involving Youssef Mikhail and Taimoor Bidari:

TENTATIVE RULING ULTIMATELY ENTERED ON ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SOLELY AGAINST ETINGOFF FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

Pending (but Un-Adjudicated) First Amended Complaint against Joe, Taimoor and Etingoff - Joe & Taimoor PAID Etingoff to represent Jaime Gonzalez and her counsel conceded the legal malpractice at the demurrer hearing.  What do you think . . .

Joe and Taimoor paid Etingoff to win for Gonzalez . . . or lose?

=============================================

Quiet Title Case brought by County Line Holdings, LLC, Ventura County Superior Court, Case No. 56-2013-0044799-CU-OR-VT:

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against County Line Holdings, LLC, Filed Thursday, May 7, 2015

=============================================

Defamation of Title Case brought by Jaime DeJesus Gonzalez against Alta Standard One, LLC.  Appeal of Order and Judgment sustaining demurrer of Alta Standard One, LLC, without leave to amend, Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. B257876. 

 

Opening Brief Filed February, 2015.

Respondent's Opening Brief Filed March 12, 2015

Reply Brief Filed April 1, 2015 - Case awaiting Oral Argument.

APPEAL DENIED HERE - The Court refused to consider the arguments in the Reply Brief, and determined the McClanahan action was "res judicata" as to the title of the property.

PETITION FOR REHEARING: Denied in one day

PETITION FOR REVIEW TO CA SUPREME COURT is PENDING NOW

 ===========================================

Adult Protective Service Complaints:

Janice McClanahan

Thomas Cacciatore

Timothy Sottile

Written Attachment to Form 76R94 SOC 341

Marc Bohbot

Written Explanation

John C. Torjesen

Howard Weinberg

Written Explanation

Rufus Rhoades

Susan P. Rhoades

Susan Peterson

Two-Page Explanation

 

Barbera Kruger reported the McClanahan matter to the Beverly Hills Police Department.  They have since refused to take a position claiming "no jurisdiction".  Ms. Kruger, however, visits Mrs. Mansdorf at the Beverly Hills home regularly.  A request has been made for Ms. Kruger to refer the case to Los Angeles county, and to the California State Attorney General's Office for investigation.

 

Friday, January 9, 2015, Mr. Gonzalez and an associate spoke with Ms. Kruger.  She explained they have done all they can by referring the case to Beverly Hills for investigation.  Since they will not investigate, there is nothing else Adult Protective Services can do.  She suggested contacting the State Attorney General's Office, and subpoenaing  the Adult Protective Services file from Ms. Kruger's Office to give the AG.

 

The Declarations are being finalized and bound.

 

We will do Ms. Kruger one better.  Contacting the State Attorney General's Office and giving them all the documents is exactly what we plan to do.  At the same time, the declarations will be going to the New York Times, the LA Times, the Toronto Star, the Associated Press in London, numerous federal agencies, and other official agencies empowered to help.

  Now Pending 

Unlawful Detainer Action on the Beverly Hills Home by Alta Standard One, LLC, (Marc Bohbot), with their attorney Stephen Foster of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP

 

Briefing:

(Original UD Complaint)

Motion for Summary Judgment by Alta

Motion for Summary Judgment by Mansdorf/Gonzalez

Transcript of Proceedings

                  Opening Brief * Response Brief * Reply Brief

 

Opinion Affirming UD Judgment - December 8, 2014 - Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, limited jurisdiction appeal.

Petition for Rehearing and Declaration in support - Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, limited jurisdiction appeal.

Certification for Transfer and Declaration in support - Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, limited jurisdiction appeal.

Order Modifying Opinion and Denying Certification-January 5, 2015.

 

Petition for Transfer to the Second District Court of Appeals GRANTED - January 28, 2015!

 

Opening Brief Filed, February 27, 2015

Response Brief Filed March 17, 2015

Reply Brief Filed April 7, 2015 - Case awaiting oral argument.

=============================================

Links to Other Sites Exposing the Same People

This is a COMPLETE overview of the individuals, entities, victims, crimes and actions taken:

 

The Mansdorf conspiracy involves one of, if not the most sophisticated white collar crime syndicates operating out

of Los Angeles.  It is comprised of a former government operative, judges, lawyers and real estate professionals, whose actions, no matter how blatantly illegal, remain unseen, uninvestigated and unprosecuted by all authorities. 

 

The Mansdorf Family amassed a fortune through aeronautical, other business, modern day tradesman ship.

​

       Four elders . . . .no children . . . .

two generations of wealth held in a family trust:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

Billions in Assets

2,000 acres in Malibu, California;

(which includes 3 lineal miles of beach front property)

1000+ Acres in La Tuna Canyon, California;

1000+ Acres in Glendale, California;

$100M in Various Stock;

A Mansion  on over an acre of land in Beverly Hills;

775,000 Acres in Venezuela.

 

 

​

The Syndicate dragged the Mansdorfs and their family trust assets through complex real estate schemes involving over 50 separate limited and unlimited superior court and federal District and Bankruptcy cases, in a vicious, relentless, unyielding attack to steal the entire Mansdorf fortune between 1976 and today.  Jaime DeJesus Gonzalez has fought for ten years.  Harry made him the Trustee before he passed . . .and now he has HELP.

 

Canyon Hills Preservation They knew something was very wrong with the Whitebird deal in La Tuna.  Page 4 of their Newsletter goes over the involvement of Guillermo "Bill" Morgan, the transfers in 1996, (now known to be fraudulent), and the Mansdorf Family Trust.  Also, the involvement of politicians behind the Whitebird deal, and the HUGE opposition from the community.

"Joe Must Go.org.  They have identified a SERIOUS problem with Joe Edmiston and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.   Take the poll, chime in on the topic.  What do you think?

 

Los Angeles Times Articles on Mr. Edmiston:   

                         1        2        3

Los Angeles Times - Wallace Patrick Moriarty.  In 1985, Moriarty pleaded guilty to mail fraud in a case that became the biggest political scandal in California in 30 years. Over 10 prominent politicians, including one state senator, were indicted for taking bribes from Moriarty.  Literally hundreds of news articles were written about this man in the Los Angeles Times.  The money he stole from the Mansdorfs and others with his schemes was used to fund political campaigns, so he could push his nefarious agendas even further. 

 

HERE and HERE are the is the link to explaining the Wackenhut/ Moriarty/Marshall Riconosciuto connection - Marshall was Michael Riconosciuto’s father.  Michael Riconosciuto developed the PROMISE software.  HERE and HERE are videos explaining the facts.

 

HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE are links explaining this massive scheme. 

 

HERE ON PAGE  12 is a link to the ACLU explaining the problems with the Government trying to use Moriarty to prosecute his associates.

The Fraud and Horrendous Elder Abuse by Giacomazza detailed in the Unpublished Opinion on his civil appeal HERE  Even after such a scathing review by judges, including intoning Giacomazza had murdered Norman and Mildred Mansdorf, no criminal charges were ever filed against Giacomazza or his daughter.

 HERE and HERE are articles on Richard Raymond Keith.  Richard Raymond Keith was a close Moriarty associate, who used the name Keith Card. 

 

As "Keith Card," Mr. Richard Raymond Keith claimed to buy some of the "Magic 4" Parcels HERE from the AFF Trustee's Sale in 1984, sell them to McClanahan in 1988 HERE, then sell the same to Lee Mansdorf in 1992 HERE.  Moriarty was still working on his scheme.

The 1990 Second District of the California Court of Appeals Detailing This "Shady Scheme" In Their Own Words, Which Began Back In 1980!!!

The 2011 California Court of Appeals Ruling Stating Giacomazza Was Alone With Mildred and Norman Mansdorf When Both Died Suspiciously!!!

[Page 22]

DEARING: Do you know why Torjesen stopped bidding?

WEINBERG: I can't speculate what's in his mind.  However, I will say that I told Mr. Torjesen before the bidding that I had only $500,000 with which to bid and I would not bid beyond that.

       .  .  . 

[Page 32]

WEINBERG: ". . . I said, 'I don't believe I can record a deed with only APN numbers.  You have the title report with the legal descriptions.  I want to attach those so that it becomes a recordable deed.'  And the person at that counter said, 'That's fine with us.'"

[Page 33]

DEARING: Was she wearing a uniform?

WEINBERG: Yes.

[Sheriff's Department Officer Debra Aldrich was questioned "off record" by counsels during the depo of Sheriff's Officer Gabby Canales.  Ms. Aldrich explained to all that there are NO uniformed officers in the area Weinberg describes.  "Why" Ms. Aldrich was "deposed" off-record will have to be answered by the counsel who did it, and has since requested to be let off the case.]

      .   .   .

[Page 64]

DEARING: Okay. Answer that one.

WEINBERG: I don't recall having any conclusions or thoughts about that particular qualification of Item 127 of 130 exceptions to title on the title policy.

DEARING: Doesn't it mean that the title company's questioning how Harry Mansdorf can acquire title when he's deceased?

MR. ANTONI: Objection. Calls for speculation as to what the intent was of the title company in writing the text on -- in -- noted in Item No. 127.

WEINBERG: I don't know what they meant by that.

(Please note: Weinberg is an attorney, and self-proclaimed "expert" in real estate law.)

A  Marina in Malibu?

 

 Click HERE to see the plans

CLICK HERE TO SEE WHAT THE SYNDICATE HAS BROKEN THE LAW TO TRY AND STEAL

[Page 9]

DEARING: ". . .I'd like you to take a particular look at the seven pages of legal description that are attached to the sheriff's deed in Exhibit 1 . . ."

 . . .

DEARING: Did the deed that was prepared by the sheriff's office include the seven pages of legal descriptions that I've just referred to?

CANALES: No.

DEARING: We were told by the representative of the grantee - - the grantee is County Line Holdings, Inc. - that when he came to collect the deed at the counter of the Sheriff's Office, that a sheriff's deputy gave the representative permission to add seven pages of legal description to the deed that the sheriff's office had prepared, so that he could have a deed that was recordable.

.  .  .

CANALES: That's not the kind of permission we would give.

[Page 16]

DEARING: Have you reported this case to a superior? And by "this case," I mean the attachment of a legal description to the sheriff's deed?

CANALES: The only notice that I have given to County Counsel was when you served me with the deposition subpoena.

DEARING: Okay. Is there any investigation ongoing? Is there any ongoing investigation about the

appropriateness of attaching the legal description to the deed?

CANALES: Not to my knowledge.

.  .  .

[Page 34]

DEARING: And it would be against policies and procedures of this office to allow someone to add seven pages of legal descriptions to the deed that you prepared?

A. Correct.

 

[Page 49]

DEARING: All right. Is it appropriate under the Sheriff's procedures for after a sale is conducted, using those APNs and a deed issued for recordation for the party receiving the deed to alter it by adding things to it?

CANALES: It's not something we authorize.

 

[Page 49]

DEARING: Let's look at tab 5. This is correspondence between lawyers. First is a letter from a lawyer named Paul Orloff dated October 24. The second is a letter from a lawyer called Christopher Barnes dated October 26, 2012. First let's look at the Orloff letter. Do you recognize this letter?

TORJESEN: You sent it to me, and I just -- I didn't read the details of it. I looked and...

[Page 52]

DEARING: Did you talk with a title officer about Orloff's conclusions in his letter?

TORJESEN: I don't recall talking to any title officer.

DEARINGAnd by "conclusions," I mean his conclusion that the Probate Code did not allow a post-death levy and sale?

TORJESEN: I don't recall talking to anybody about the letter that was responded to by my attorneys.

[Page 53]

DEARING: Were you satisfied with the response?

.  .  .

TORJESEN: Well, I'm satisfied to the extent that Mr. Orloff appears to have been satisfied.

.  .  .

[Page 54]

TORJESEN: They never responded with any additional statements. They dropped the ball after that, accepting Mr. Barnes' statements.

.  .  .

DEARING: Did you speak with Howard Weinberg about a bidding strategy before bidding began?

TORJESEN: No.

DEARING: Did Howard Weinberg tell you how much money he had?

TORJESEN: Yes.

DEARING: What did he say?

TORJESEN: He said he had five hundred.

DEARING: $500,000?

TORJESEN: Correct.

DEARING: And in this regard, what did he say, and what did you say?

TORJESEN: He said he had 500, and that's all he would bid.

DEARING: What did you say?

TORJESEN: I said "Okay," and then I found out that there weren't any other bidders.

.  .  .

TORJESEN: Weinberg was bidding slow. I was there. I knew I had to make a decision as to whether I would bid over five hundred or not. That's the only thing I had to decide.

DEARINGBecause you knew he was going to pay 500,000?

TORJESENHe would go up to five hundred, and my decision was do I bid five-oh-one.

DEARING: Why didn't you bid higher than five hundred?

TORJESEN: I had looked for investors for a long time. I looked around the room, and all I saw was spectators who weren't interested in developing.  I knew what investors out there were going and what they had told me, so would it get better if I took it in my name, and I also knew that there was going to be a sheriff's sale for uncollected taxes, and I wanted to be done with it.

DEARING: You received 500,000 from the sale?

TORJESEN: It went to my attorneys.

DEARING: Do you still have the 500,000?

TORJESEN: My attorneys have distributed it.

 

According to the Federal Buerau of Investigations: 

Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to public real estate foreclosure and other auctions should contact the Antitrust Division’s Los Angeles Office at (310) 477-6565.

 

WE KNOW WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT NOW:

 

ABOVE-GROUND CHAOS TO COVER-UP AND KEEP CONCEALED ALL THE BELOW-GROUND THEFT OF OIL AND HYDROCARBONS FROM THE MALIBU LAND - FOR DECADES

 

WE KNOW WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT NOW:

 

USE THE CONSERVANCY AND JOESEPH T. EDMISTON TO TAKE 400+ ACRES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MALIBU LAND, INSTALL THE FRACKING EQUIPMENT, AND BEGIN LATERAL DRILLING . . . 

Lee Mansdorf developed the Pregnant Guppy with Jack Conroy to thelp the United States reach the Moon first.

 

*all Reward money will be paid out of probate as a "probate administration" cost, whereby the reward recipient will submit a claim to the probate court in the amount of the reward offer, and be paid in due course of administration of the probate of the Mansdorf Family Revocable Trust, dated August 31, 1967, (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number BP 147495, or potentially one or more additional case numbers in Los Angeles, and potentially other counties).  Only one Reward Payment per Reward Offer may be claimed under this reward program.  Meaning, whomever provides or produces the information first, per person, per Reward Offer, gets paid and ends that specific Reward Offer.  You may remain anonymous when providing the information, and if you do choose to do so, efforts will be made to seal any public records containing identifying information, and ensure they remain sealed.   You may also email directly at: Mansdorfconspiracypublic@gmail.com, for any other information, questions or concerns regarding these Reward Offers.

HERE IS HOW THEY STOLE 1000 ACRES IN LA TUNA CANYON, CA

Harry Mansdorf was a Two-Time, purple heart recipient,

shot down TWICE in WWII.  These were Amercan Heros.

This website is dedicated to exposing this story.

  Recent Rulings   

Opinion Affirming UD Judgment - December 8, 2014 - Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, limited jurisdiction appeal.

 

Order Modifying Opinion and Denying Certification-January 5, 2015.

 

Petition for Transfer to Court of Appeals GRANTED - January 28, 2015!

=================================

Tentative Ruling: Demurrer to Legal Malpractice - Overruled, made final on February 4, 2015 

=================================

Judge Walsh Takes the Motion for Summary Adjudication on Malibu "Under Submission" (Item No. 210 on page 10)

 

Judge Henry Walsh DENIES the Motion for Summary Adjudication!  Probate Code DOES NOT MATTER IN CALIFORNIA !!!!

 

Even where the levy was after death, and even though both Probate Code and Code of Civil Procedure reuqire ALL PERSONS CEASE USING THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS LAW WHERE NO LEVY OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE DEATH OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR, Judge Walsh STILL determined the 90 day absolute rule of CCP 701.680 (under the Enforcemetn of Judgments law), superseded Stanley v. Westover (holding a sale based upon a levy after death is void because nothing was levied) and controlled over Probate Code section 19300

 

COUNTY LINE HOLDINGS THEN FILES A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AGAINST JAIME AS TRUSTEE HERE.

 

JUDGE WALSH TENTATIVELY AGREED WITH COUNTY LINE, BUT REFRAINED FROM RULING UNTIL THE COURT OF APPEALS HEARS THE PENDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE.

 

THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE WAS SUMMARILY DENIED BY THE SECOND DISTRICT OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION SIX ON MAY 12, 2015

 

A PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT IS IN PROGRESS.

 

NOW READ THE PENDING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AGAINST COUNTY LINE HOLDINGS, LLC, FILED THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2015, HERE.

 

Read the Opposition of County Line Holdings, LLC, filed May 22, 2015, HERE.

 

Read the Reply to the Opposition HERE.

=================================

Judge Elizabeth White DENIES the Motion to Vacate her VOID Order claiming "let me just indicate that the court signed an order back on April 15, 2013.  And the matter was resolved at that time." 

 

Does that sound like a "legal" basis to deny a 473(d) motion which is arguing the order is "void" because the court lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to render it?

 

Read the Motion to Vacate HERE.

View the Request for Judicial Notice & Exhibits HERE

Read the Petition for Writ of Mandate When Filed in the Court of Appeals HERE.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE DENIED HERE

The Basis: insufficient showing of entitlement to "Extraordinary relief".  Go Figure.

NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED APRIL 14, 2015.

(This direct appeal will prevent Gonzalez from having to show entitlement to "extraordinary relief" - simply vacating the void order.)

PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED APRIL 20, 2015

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Anchor 1

Witness the pain imposed upon the late Harry Mansdorf

first-hand.  The merciless Syndicate has NO boundaries.

YOUR ELDER COULD BE NEXT . . .

Anchor 2

  From the Blog   

bottom of page