Monday, November 30, 2020

CA Atty "Philip Ganong" alleged $22 Mil extorted from insurance Companies makes Avenatti look like a Saint -

Did you know attorneys are deemed court officers because they are admitted to practice law before various California Courts?  

Now ask yourself, how is one able to keep their court job when alleged to have extorted  $22 Million from Healthcare Insurance Companies, Money Laundering? ...


"2 left-wing lawyers walk into a state bar …

Rachel Alexander explains widespread bias against conservative attorneys in matters of discipline

November 16, 2020 at 7:20pm

 
...A typical example of state bar bias regarding lawyers involves a trial attorney in California, Philip Ganong, who has been indicted on 94 counts of medical fraud involving $22 million. 

This is clearly not a small accusation. The Ganong family operated multiple businesses, including a medical testing lab and a staffing agency that were used as a "front to overbill insurance companies," Orange County prosecutors said

It probably falls under "body-brokering," a practice plaguing Southern California "where addiction centers lure substance abusers into treatment and max out their insurance benefits. …" The State Bar of California has taken no action against Ganong even though one defendant has already served time in prison, and it's been three and a half years since the felony complaint warrant was filed against Ganong. In fact, he bragged about his good standing with the bar as a defense to the media."... Source: https://www.wnd.com/2020/11/2-left-wing-lawyers-walk-state-bar/

Thus, how refreshing to see a journalist like Rachel Alexander, bring forth this real life public awareness issue, because many legal consumers are often mentally and financially vulnerable, when needing legal help from California attorneys.

Additionally, the article written by Alexander, is a document that is beyond shocking to one's conscious mind.

Yet, only within the California court systems does it allow one of their own "good ole boys:" Philip Ganong, to keep his job as a court officer, even when alleged with  94 Criminal Counts, Extortion "over billing" $22 Million against insurance companies, Money Laundering...

How many say, innocent until proven guilty, although the reality is that several persons are already seen as guilty, before proven innocent and their equal protections "High Jacked!"

Keeping in mind, let it be a black male, black female (African American), poor person or other minority caught stealing a candy bar he or she will lose their job, housing, separated from family, do not receive get out of jail free cards and may often times gets 25 to Life, with added sentence time defined as "enhancements." 

The enhancements supposedly imposed  to deter one from committing future crimes.

Nevertheless, has anyone raised the arguments if "enhancements," are unconstitutional?  Because California still holds its position on the Three Strikes Law.  

Even though in November 2012, Proposition 36 was passed by California voters to revise the California Three Strikes Law, under California Penal Code 667, to impose life sentences only on those individuals convicted of a new serious or violent felony.

Hence, with the voters passing Prop 36, it is apparent there exists a three tier criminal justice system for the poor, middle class and elite, while the third tier elitist, buy their justice.   

Not to mention, certain persons were focused on "defunding police" and maybe their efforts would have been better spent on reforming the three tier criminal court systems.

To this end, should Courts post "Public Warning Disclaimer Hot Sheets - Consumer Alerts," on their court websites in order to prevent the appearance of conflict, regarding any California Attorney-Court Officer, alleged with committing criminal acts against the public? 


image.png

  Source: Superior Court of California - County of Orange 

Saturday, November 28, 2020

"Political Cartel Members"

Companies who buy up politicians and politicians who become  "Political Cartel Members," they have no qualms about selling out America! Political Corporate Espionage? ~ Star Moffatt

 

 


 


Wednesday, November 25, 2020

Why did California and other States "Deter" Disabled Voters from voting in the Presidential Election?

 


 

The below (2016) Election Stats speak for themselves and you ask yourself how are States including, California, able to interfere with "Disabled Voters" fundamental rights? 

 

Because, no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws.”    The principle of equal protection is a fundamental right, that applies to "Disabled Voters," because, at its core, equal protection laws  also protects "Disabled Voters," who are  protected class members from arbitrary discrimination at the hands of States, inclusive (“CALIFORNIA”).

 

(2016) STATES THAT “DETERRED” DISABLED OR PERSONS ILL FROM VOTING

AT WHAT PERCENTAGE % did each state perform during (2016) Election?

(2016) CITED SOURCES –

 

DATA RESERACHED BY:

 

MIT.EDU

ALABAMA

22.29%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=AL&year=2016

ALASKA

12.19%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=AK&year=2016

ARIZONA

8.29%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=AZ&year=2016

ARKANSAS*

20.19%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=AR&year=2016

CALIFORNIA

11.56%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=CA&year=2016

COLORADO

7.06%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=CO&year=2016

CONNECTICUT*

20.21%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=CT&year=2016

DELAWARE

17.92%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=DE&year=2016

FLORIDA

13.16%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=FL&year=2016

GEORGIA

14.85%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=GA&year=2016

HAWAII

10%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=HI&year=2016

IDAHO*

11.97%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=ID&year=2018

ILLINOIS

12.52%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=IL&year=2018

INDIANA

17.44%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=IN&year=2016

IOWA*

9.00%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=IA&year=2016

KANSAS

13.78%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=KS&year=2016

KENTUCKY

16.85%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=KY&year=2016

LOUISIANA*

18.31%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=LA&year=2016

MAINE

14.26%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=ME&year=2016

MARYLAND

16.13%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=MD&year=2016

MASSACHUSETTS*

19.43%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=MA&year=2016

Michigan

13.58%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=MI&year=2016

MISSISSIPPI*

18.74%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=MS&year=2016

MISSOURI*

17.09%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=MO&year=2016

MONTANA

8.46%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=MT&year=2016

NEBRASKA*

10.42%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NE&year=2016

NEVADA*

12.05%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NV&year=2016

NEW HAMPSHIRE

15.51%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NH&year=2016

NEW JERSEY

16.54%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NJ&year=2016

NEW MEXICO*

14.92%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NM&year=2016

NEW YORK

14.65%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NY&year=2016

NORTH CAROLINA

16.48%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=NC&year=2016

NORTH DAKOTA*

10.07%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=ND&year=2016

OHIO*

12.38%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=OH&year=2016

OKLAHOMA*

15.39%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=OK&year=2016

OREGON*

8.96%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=OR&year=2016

PENNSYLVANIA*

15.44%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=PA&year=2016

RHODE ISLAND*

18.51%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=RI&year=2016

SOUTH CAROLINA

17.46

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=SC&year=2016

SOUTH DAKOTA

10.00%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=SD&year=2016

TENNESSEE

14.36%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=TN&year=2016

TEXAS

11.84%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=TX&year=2016

UTAH*

12.13%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=UT&year=2016

VERMONT*

7.33%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=VT&year=2016

VIRGINIA*

16.85%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=VA&year=2016

WASHINGTON*

3.42%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=WA&year=2016

WEST VIRGINIA*

21.79%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=WV&year=2016

WISCONSIN

15.93%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=WI&year=2016

WYOMING

7.84%

https://elections.mit.edu/#/data/map?view=state-profile&state=WY&year=2016

 

Source: MIT.EDU

Stat Table: 11/25/20, Wednesday 

 Pending (2020) Stats for comparison.