Oral Argument in Appeal B261156 - Gary Michelson - Justice Richard Mosk, Los Angeles, California - Corruption in the Courts

Below are snippets from the 29 minute oral argument in case B261156. Justice Richard Mosk, Justice Paul Turner, Justice Sandy Kriegler were at the oral argument. I'll try to name the speakers. Suffice it to say Justice Richard Mosk appeared to be of the opinion that if you don't know how much Appellants paid for the property before Gary Michelson bought it, how can one tell if Gary made or lost money?

Justice Richard Mosk as all know requested "medical leave" after oral argument. Chief of the Supreme Court Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauy then appointed her long time friend pro tem Judge Sanjay Kumar to the position to sit until April 11, 2016. This means Justice Cantil knew the opinion would be released April 8, 2016 a Friday. Days before the opinion was to be released March 31, 2016 Justice Richard Mosk decided to retire. That was a good move on his part so his name won't be associated with this incredibly unjust ruling. This ruling shows the extreme corruption in our judicial system. No money was lost or stolen. Powers made Gary Michelson millions of dollar. I wish Powers could "defraud" me so I could also make millions of dollars.

If you listen to these audio snippets, you can see that Justice Richard Mosk is frustrated and upset with this ridiculous, frivolous case. No money was lost. Millions in profits were made. There was no written or oral contract as to commission. You can also hear the Deputy AG act like a deer in headlights. He has no case and he knows it. It's obviously tough for him make up stories and fake arguments on the spot.

1. AG David Voet can't answer question posed by Justice Richard Mosk.

RM: Look, we're talking about count three. That's the only count, right?

AG: Yes

RM: Michelson testified that he acquired those properties for $759K. Right?

AG: Correct

RM: And he testifies that Powers was to receive no more compensation on that transaction other than the 6 % commission, right?

AG: Yes

RM: On cross he was asked how much of the $759K was taken from him, right?

AG: Ahm

RM: And he responded "I don't have personal knowledge as I sit here."

AG: That's right

RM: and there was no evidence to the property's original purchase, right?

AG: Well, I guess the only evidence is the fact that this amount of money was sent.

RM: That was the theory in count 3 which was, I paid $759K. I was tricked because they bought it for less. Isn't that count three?

AG: Wuh, uh

RM: It either is or it isn't

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4QVRWTEJBbC1yTGc/view?usp=sharing

2. AG continues to stumble on a simple question

RM: Do you have any evidence for the price for the land as it pertains to this one count?

AG: You mean in terms of receipts?

RM: (do you have) any evidence at all? Is there any evidence in the record as to what defendant Powers paid for the land down in Costa Rica?

AG: Uh, the position we take is Dr Michelson said this is how much he was asked for and this is how much he sent and I think that is evidence of the amount paid for the property

RM: Say that again, a little louder.

AG: Sorry your honor. Dr Michelson is the one who came up with these figures who testified to these figures . I was asked for this amount. I sent $150K right away and then ...

RM: That's not the question. The question is how much did Powers pay for the property. Is there any evidence to that? I could find not.

AG: I'm not understanding your question, your honor. Please repeat.

RM: It's the same question Justice Steilger (sp?)asked. How much did Powers pay for the property for which Dr Michelson paid $759K? Is there any evidence as to how much the property was actually purchased not by Michelson but by Powers?


AG: I can't represent any particular number on that for what I remember about the case (AG was not at the trial)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4U0NSaF9wNXJIWUE/view?usp=sharing

3. AG submits.

Justice Richard Mosk: "The question was under count three what evidence was presented that he was being defrauded? I thought it had to do with they were only to get 6% but they were actually buying this property much cheaper and reselling it to me so they were getting more than 6%. Wasn't that the theory?"

DAG Voet: "Uh, that may have been the prosecution theory but I would submit that you have to look at the this case much more broadly not just that single transaction. In the sense that would Dr Michleson have continued to have done this had he known about everything that was going on, that these two people who posed as friends were trying to trick him. I think because of that he would have said 'I'm not sending you any more money. Why would I send you any more money because your intent is to defraud me."

Under this premise Gary Michelson believes that if he does business with someone and they make one penny profit, they have tricked and defrauded him.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4X1FpYTJoVDlZcGM/view?usp=sharing

4. AG, where's the evidence

RM: If we don't know what they paid for it, how do we know where the trick was here?

AG: The trick was uh, mm, they engaged in this comprehensive scheme to defraud Dr Michelson

RM: Well, you can keep saying that over and over again. I'm asking what was the evidence and the theory of the prosecutor? Just to say there was a scheme, there was a trick or device, tell me how, what, exactly what, where's the evidence .

AG: Well, here's some evidence. Powers, you know, kept these properties in his own entity and in fact refused to do anything to them until he extorted Dr Michelson to purchase them back

RM: I don't follow that. That doesn't even answer, that doesn't even get close to answering my quetion

AG: Okay, well Dr Michelson never would have sent that money had he known about everything that was going on. I think, I don't want to over simplify it

Other Judge: Whichever your position is, misrepresentation was made concerning, with the land, with the usable floor, and it turns out that the land could not be used for which the purpose for which it was (Justice feeding argument on behalf of  AG)

AG: Not fully used. Some of the property even though it wasn't really suitable for an investment, might have had some trees on it

Other Judge: The entirety of the property, was not suit.., you couldn't grow teak on all of it. Is that correct?

AG: or there was no teak already there.

RM: It sold for $32 million.

AG: Loss is not the issue (If loss is not the issue, then there is no dollar loss. Must be misdemeanor)


RM: I understand but it wasn't like it was swamp land. There must have been some value to it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4Z1FaTUxtbUhFTnc/view?usp=sharing

5. No 6% agreement

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4cDNobExWNmxvU0E/view?usp=sharing

6. No trick or device

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4WGg0MC1zSGVWVnc/view?usp=sharing

7. Reversed

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4Q1pFTXFHYTZrdUU/view?usp=sharing

8. Trick or device

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4WGNFTklvWFI0V3M/view?usp=sharing

Link to the Appeals case docket.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=2097149&doc_no=B261156

Timeline of the appeal most recent events

November 16, 2015 oral argument

December 11, 2015 letter brief requested on points

December 17/18, 2015 letter briefs submitted by parties

January 22 2016 submission vacated as Justice Richard Mosk requested "medical leave"

** Judge Sanjay Kumar appointed to vacant position by Chief Justice

March 1, 2016 Oral argument offered and waived by both parties

March 18, 2016 Justice Richard Mosk sends retirement letter to Governor stating he will retire March 31, 2016

April 8, 2016 Opinion released

Here is an old interview with Mosk just to give you a feel for his character.

Here's video so you can tell it is Justice Richard Mosk speaking. 

Dr Gary Michelson, Michelson Prize, $75 million, Found Animals Foundation, Dr. Gary Michelson, Gary Michelson, Gary, Michelson, Gerald, Michaelson, Gary Michaelson, G Karlin Michelson, Mary Cummins, Animal Advocates, marycummins.com, animaladvocates.us, Gary Karlin Michelson, Gary K Michelson, Karlin Michelson, Alya Michelson, Aimee Gilbreath, teak, farm, billionaire, Forbes, lawsuit, worth, married, fraud, pitbull, purebred, bribe, bribery, patent, spine, animal nut, patent troll, thief, criminal, childhood, philadelphia, pennsylvania, boca de canon, Los Angeles, California, Ed Boks, Edward Boks, Antonio Villaraigosa, steve cooley, jackie lacey, campaign, donation, district attorney, inventor, hall of fame, grandmother, hand, fire, burn, 20, million minds, text book, free, surgery, surgical, twenty million minds, dog, high school, law, lawyer, doctor, dr., Michelson Medical Research Foundation, foundation, wilshire, Karlin Asset Management, KAM, Found Animals Legislative Fund, mom, dad, mother, father, brother, Gracie, bull, spay, neuter, adopt, buy, capital, karlin ventures, david cohen, tianxiang zhuo, spinal, surgeon, ceo, Karlin Real Estate, charity, 501 3c, irs, nonprofit, non-profit, Gary Karlin Michelson M D Charitable Foundation, gay, homosexual, wayne pacelle, hsus, animal services, temple university, medical, school, born, flake, crazy, central high school, Hahnemann Medical College, drexel, jewish, russian, Medtronic, Wikipedia, grant, $25, $50, Kremlin, mail order bride, Karlin Holdings Limited Partnership, C & M Investment Group Limited, michelson technology at work, Infuse class action lawsuit, Karlin Opportunity Fund, Karlin OP, Medical Research Foundation Trust, Alya Michelson, Alya Gold, Alevtina Gold Michelson, Tina Gold, Alevtina Shchepetina, Alexander Shchepetina, Алевтина Щепетина, александр щепетин, sasha, ria novosti, USC, University of Southern California, Gary Michelson Center, Japanica, Russian mail order bride, T'n'G, test tube girl, smile, orel, russia, moscow, journalist, pathological liar, #deanflorez #foundanimalsorg #alyamichelson #20MillionMinds #drGaryMichelson #GaryMichelson #20MM #JAPANICA #Forbes #billionaire #infuse #lawsuit #classaction #usc * Disclaimer Legal disclaimer