Wednesday, June 21, 2017

AV Press-Littlerock Dam Project and Palmdale Water District

Palmdale Water District where is the $16.1 Million dollars you already received for the Littlerock Dam Project in year 1993?



Alisha Semchuck, Valley Press Staff Writer, what a marvelous article you did, dated June 12, 2017 and titled: Rec area’s closure addressed. 


I want to remind the readers of one particular quote by Dennis LaMoreaux within your article when he said: “…It will cost water district customers between $600,000 and $700,000 a year “to haul that stuff out.”…  

Simple question to the Palmdale Water District – Where is the $16.1 Million dollars you already received from the Palmdale Water District Customers, back in year 1993?



Because according to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) - Palmdale Water District received $16.1 Million, in 1993 for Littlerock Dam Project.

The Certificates of Participation (Bonds) already caused a debt against Palmdale Water District Customers in 1993 to fund the Littlerock Dam Project, with Parcel Taxation levies against commercial and residential land owners. 


Second question to the #Palmdale #Water District (PWD) – What causes (PWD) to believe you can charge Palmdale Water District Customers (Taxpayers) a second time in year 2017, for the same Littlerock Dam Project of 1993, you already received $16.1million? 


Click on the below Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) Link to view evidence, that the Palmdale Water District has already been paid once in the amount ($16.1 Million) in 1993, for the same project now of 2017:


Thank you again AV Press and Semchuck for your informational and educational article mentioned above.

Sincerely,


Star Moffatt, Taxpayer against Government Fraud, Excessive Taxation, Waste and Abuse


Friday, May 26, 2017

CORRUPT JUDGE




No one and not even a "corrupt judge" will pierce our righteousness, because the snakes head will eventually be chopped off  and justice will be served!

Friday, May 12, 2017

Palmdale California Mayor James Ledford Victim of "Political Fishiness?"



Do you smell “Political Fishiness” against Palmdale City Mayor Ledford?



The political fishiness, smells like James Ledford / City of Palmdale is under a subliminal political hit job, by someone or some person[s], who would just love to take over our awesome City of Palmdale!

At this point, it is so important, that each and every person within the City of Palmdale, show support towards our City of Palmdale and James Ledford, because every person is innocent until proven guilty.

However, when political hit jobs happens, the "evildoers" try and make it appear through various news media outlets (including fake news media outlets), that you are guilty from the onset. However, it is the other way around that one is always innocent until proven guilty by a court of law and GOD! 

Last time I checked, James Ledford and others have not been stripped of their Citizenship as Americans and deserve to be treated with equal protection and due processes.

Stand hand-to-hand with James Ledford, because Ledford does not deserve to be treated like a criminal, when the purported matter at issue, has not even worked its way through a court of law.

With the above said, it is a dam shame that someone or some persons are trying to use their political influences within the County DA, in attempts to try and destroy a person (James Ledford) and our City, due to grid, in attempts to try and take over our proud City of Palmdale!

James Ledford you have been added to a "Prayer List," because many of your Supporters hope you will not have to suffer long, with wearing the Shoes of Injustice!”



Friday, April 28, 2017

STRESS

Everyday of my life is filled with stress, it is how I react to control either the good or bad stress!

Thursday, April 27, 2017

CORRUPT JUSTICE

How are you going to spearhead justice when you are a corrupt justice?

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Sex in Arizona Attorney Association




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

By: Star Moffatt, star@moffattlawfirm.com
Star Moffatt, Spokesperson
PUBLISHED: April 19, 2017
Updated: April 27, 2018


_________________________________________________________________________________

Did you know the State Bar of Arizona-(Attorney Trade Association), allows  its Arizona Attorney  members, to have "consensual sex," with their legal clients? 

State Bar of Arizona:
Ethical Rule 1.8(j) reads:  "A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced." Reference Source: http://www.azbar.org/Ethics/RulesofProfessionalConduct/ViewRule?id=28



Final question:  Since Arizona attorneys are allowed to have "consensual sex" with their legal client[s], then should an attorney lose his or her professional occupational attorneys license and livelihood just for asking of a "selfie-nude" photo, from a non-legal client?



California Bar 
Now look at the position the "California Bar" has taken to "ban" ..."sex between lawyers and their clients.  See Reference Source by Associated Press:   


Tags:
#California Bar
#State Bar of Arizona
#Arizona



Sunday, April 9, 2017

State Bar of California challenged by Women's Civil Rights Attorney



 BREAKING NEWS ALERT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

  Patricia Barry is challenging her disbarment before the Federal U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against California State Supreme Court and State Bar of California.

 

 
In 1986, Barry argued the first sexual harassment case in U. S. Supreme Court, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) in which Justice Rehnquist writing for unanimous court held that environmental harassment like quid pro quo harassment is gender discrimination. Barry also won Vinson v. Taylor, 753 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1985) which was the case challenged in the Supreme Court sub nomine Meritor.

Historically, April 11, 2017, Tuesday, at 2:30pm Commissioner Peter Shaw of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Courtroom 2, at 95 Seventh St, San Francisco will conduct a hearing as to whether Patricia Barry, Women’s / Civil Rights Attorney should be disbarred from practice in the Federal Ninth Circuit Court, based on disbarment by the California Supreme Court, initiated by the State Bar of California.  Barry was admitted to the Ninth Circuit Bar in June 1985. Barry had practiced for 41-1/2 years in both state and federal court when the Court disbarred her.




According to Barry, in each of the three cases on which the disbarment is based Barry represented a domestic violence victim trying to regain custody of her child(ren) from the abuser, Carol Mardeusz in July 2000; Darla Elwood in 2002 through 2006; Michele Fotinos, 2010 to the present time.



In the Marduesz case the complaining witness was Marin judge Verna Adams, who found Barry in contempt in July 2000 in part because she objected to the prosecutor’s badgering of Mardeusz stating truthfully that Mardeusz was a victim of domestic violence. When Barry stated that Mardeusz was a victim of domestic violence Judge Adams immediately ordered the bailiff to place Barry in a holding cell in front of the jury.

Barry also went on to say the following, “that in the Elwood case, the complaining witness was Joseph Morin, the father of two of Elwood’s children, whom Barry had sued. He is a child batterer (there are declarations from Elwood’s two older children who described his abuse).

Morin also engaged in racial violence (settled the case for a substantial amount of money) and in addition, threatened to kill a woman who he believed was a lesbian (she was) (she had obtained a two year restraining order against him based in part on his death threats against her).

In the Fotinos case, the bar witness is Betsy Kimball who defended a San Mateo attorney Stephen Montalvo whom Barry was suing because he committed gross malpractice and fraud against Fotinos. In 2012 when Barry served Montalvo with the legal malpractice/fraud complaint, the Bar appointed Kimball to the legal malpractice insurance committee.

Montalvo took $70,000 from Fotinos and left her with no kids, no community property, and $67 a month in child support. Barry had not paid $4,275 in discovery sanctions to him and $1,500 to the Court because Fotinos had no money to pay attorney fees to Barry. The Bar prosecutor found that Barry lacked the funds to pay the attorney and the Court the sanctions. 

The judge entered a judgment in the Montalvo lawsuit which did not include the sanctions orders.  Nonpayment of discovery and judicial sanctions, although not included in the judgment, is the primary reason the Bar disbarred Barry.”


On April 11, 2017, Patricia Barry must prove (1) a deprivation of due process; (2) insufficient proof of misconduct; or (3) grave injustice which would result from the imposition of such discipline.
Unfortunately throughout our nation, attorneys are now coming under attack by Bar Associations who are interfering with  Constitutional Rights (Freedom of Speech), which also applies to attorneys when they defend in court pleadings vigorously for their clients.
Thus, without Barry to defend the defenseless in both Federal and State courts our country will become a darker place! 

For media inquiries contact Star Moffatt, Spokeswoman Moffatt Law Firm – star@moffattlawfirm.com

Tags:
#State Bar of California, #Patricia Barry, #Ninth Circuit Court, #Disbar, #Freedom of Speech, #Deprivation, #Civil Rights.
                                                   ###