I filed evidentiary documents and a twenty page pleading, alleging, among others, threat to life. Also alleging – with evidentiary documents – that documents from Courtfile were being withheld and destroyed – which is a crime. These were incriminating documents and arguments, which should have got any judicial officer worried and helping the victims. Not these. They’ve been immunized against justice.

Attempts are underway to have the last of the twenty Appeals to higher courts, dismissed using procedural manipulations.

I am in India, for urgent medical treatment which I could not afford in US, or in New Zealand. Why? Because these respectable members of society had robbed me blind. So I asked for extension of time, or stay until my medical treatment is completed. But over twenty motions/appeals have been dismissed using the same ole same ole ways to manipulate procedures – wait for years to move forward, and then, as soon as someone finds out that I may be unavailable for a month or so, dismiss my motions/appeals/complaints while I am unavailable for medical or other important reasons.

Using procedural tactics to dispense injustice. Using procedural tactics to ensure that people who robbed me of $10m continue holding onto that $10m.

Here, they refused to accept ie rejected – the medical records submitted with my documents, and then in their order, state that no evidence was provided. Isn’t that swell? Dig your heads deeper into the sand, please do Sir.

Dear Judges, no, I am not on a vacation on the Caribbean islands, I am being operated upon, having SURGERY, in India. And if you had accepted my filing instead of rejecting it, you’d see that I am indeed being operated upon.

6DCA clerk had sent me an email that they’d wait till Sept 23 – apparently I have to seek permission to file evidence (which they can then conveniently reject), but the Court made a ruling on Sept 20th instead, before I could file request for permission. So, so, so predictably manipulative !

Been there. Done that already dear respected and respectable justices of 6DCA. Try something new instead. Something more befitting your age.


Letter to the Appellate Clerk

On Sept 13, 2022, I received from the Court stating that the clerk would hold my documents until 9/23/2022 before rejecting them, allowing me to file a request for permission. It stated the following:

Your reply to defendant’s opposition must be accompanied with an application/request for permission to file a reply.  I will hold your reply until Tuesday September 23, 2022. If our court does not receive the application/request for permission to file reply by 9/23/22, I will reject the documents.  You can always resubmit once you have also prepared and submitted the application/request for permission to file a reply.  

Today, I received a string of emails, telling me that the documents had been rejected because I had failed to file the request for permission to file a reply.

I do not believe, and despite my request to be informed of the same and receiving no response, that there is any statutory requirement for me to file a request for permission to file a reply – unless this is a new procedural manipulation used to find a way of dismissing the appeal.  If the defendants file an opposition replete with misinformation, misrepresentations and lies, the procedural rules give me a right to file a reply. Why should I be stopped from replying? 

If the Court’s intention is to ultimately dismiss my appeal using flimsy pretexts, with the goal of concealing the alleged crimes of the defendants and their associates – including but not limited to Judges like Davila and Zayner, as this court, and other courts have been doing for the past 15 years, it is best that I be informed so I don’t put myself thru the ordeal of completing these appeal as I have been doing for the past 15 years. Especially at this time when I am going thru medical issues. I dislike dishonesty and charades. Honesty and integrity – even if the goal is improper  – will be appreciated so we can all move on. It would be best to call a spade a spade.

Regardless of the meritlessness of this request, I wish to update the Court of the following:

The process for my surgery – requiring cardiology, anaesthesiology, and other clearances, has already been initiated last week, and most likely will be completed on Sept 22 evening. It involves getting clearance from Cardiology Department and Anaesthesiology department as a precursor for surgery. Please See attachment – photograph of the medical cards/notes which gives the dates of treatment, the departments which were involved in providing clearance. The medical cards also provide the purpose and findings. The way the hospital here works, is that there is a main department to which a patient chooses to be attached. In my case the main department I am attached with is the surgery, the rest of the departments are referrals to complete the investigation needed for surgery.

A much more detailed list of medical documentary evidence had been submitted earlier with my Reply, but has now been rejected. I will refile that evidence later with the request for permission at a later date.

If the process is completed on Sept 22, ie if the clearances are received on Sept 22, which they most likely will be received, on the same day I will also be meeting with the team of surgeons who are to perform the surgery. On the same day, I will most likely be given a date for surgery – unless the cardiology or anaesthesiology reports require further testing, or waiting because the tests reveal some issues that would force the surgeon to delay surgery. If I am unable to meet the surgeon on Sept 22, then I would be meeting him on Monday, October 3^rd (unless it is a national holiday – October 2 was supposed to be a national holiday, Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday, which is a Sunday, and so, it is not clear if Monday would be a national holiday in lieu of Sunday).  If I am unable to meet on October 3, I will have to wait till October 6, as the OPD Surgeons only see patients on Monday/Thursday.

Given the urgency, I have been assured, and most likely the surgery will be scheduled within the next 15-30 days of my meeting with the surgeon. If the surgery is scheduled within 15 – 30 days, the opposition should become moot. I will be busy with pre operative investigation, surgery, and post operative care. I believe the recommended post operative care is for 15 – 20 days.  The requested stay would become imperative.

Because the meeting with the surgeon was scheduled for September 22, 2022, and because the note from the Clerk had stated that they would hold off on rejecting the documents until Sept 23, I had planned to wait for a firm date for surgery before filing the Request for Permission late Sept 22 or early Sept 23^rd. The rejection of my filings came as a surprise.

I request the Court to wait until October 7 for my reply. If I am able to meet with the surgeon on Sept 22, or on October 3, I will immediately within 24 hour of such meeting, update this Court and file the pending reply documents with request for permission.

Madhu Sameer’

Of course the Court doesnt really care if I am on the operation table, under anesthesia. In fact, such a minor problem would give them a reason to dismiss the current appeal, like twenty of them had been previously dismissed or affirmed. Something – like unavailability, or refusal of the Court to provide documents from the courtfile, or transcripts – these minor things only seem to encourage the court to move forward before the issue of missing documents or transcripts could be resolved. Perhaps the Justices fear that justice would prevail ? And what would that look like? Black tar on the face of at least 15 Judges and Justices?

IN THE
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MADHU SAMEER,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
HECTOR MORENO et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
F083066
(Fresno Super. Ct. No. 15CECG00351)

ORDER
Appellant’s “Motion Seeking OSC On Appellate Division …,” filed on July 25,
2022, is denied. Appellant’s request that this court order the Fresno County Superior Court to mail her a paper copy of the over 10,000 page record on appeal to her location in India is denied. Appellant has not provided this court with any authority demonstrating that the court is required to provide her with a paper copy of the record to be delivered internationally. This court notes that the Fresno County Superior Court provided appellant with an electronic copy of the record on appeal, which may be accessed immediately and from any location.

Due to the very large record in this matter, this court will direct the Clerk of the
Fresno County Superior Court to provide appellant with an electronic copy of the record on a flash drive or other physical device capable of storing the large record. The record is to be provided to appellant at her current address with a proof of service within 10 days to this court. Appellant’s opening brief is due for filing within 60 days of sending the record on appeal.


Hill, P. J.