Testimony of Thelsey L. Fuller, BP099211, BP122665

"Knock, knock, knock."

There is no Testimony of Thelsey L. Fuller.

Robert L. Fuller, Doris A Fuller & Daniel K. Lak saw to that and the court allowed it.

Continuance, continuance, continuance, after continuance ruled the day.

Mr. Thelsey L. Fuller was never allowed to be asked or answer one question in open court regarding his wife - Mrs. Edwina J. Fuller, himself or his assets.

There is no "Testimony of Thelsey L. Fuller," why is that?

MONEY! & LIES!

06/26/2008 at 08:30 am in Department 11, Aviva K. Bobb, Presiding

DETERMINE OWNERSHIP (PC 850) - Matter continued

08/07/2008 at 08:30 am in Department 11, Aviva K. Bobb, Presiding
DETERMINE OWNERSHIP (PC 850) - Matter continued

09/18/2008 at 08:30 am in Department 11, Aviva K. Bobb, Presiding
DETERMINE OWNERSHIP (PC 850) - Matter continued

10/31/2008 at 08:30 am in Department 11, Aviva K. Bobb, Presiding
DETERMINE OWNERSHIP (PC 850) - Matter continued

01/08/2009 at 08:30 am in Department 11, Aviva K. Bobb, Presiding
DETERMINE OWNERSHIP (PC 850) - Matter continued

03/12/2009 at 08:30 am in Department 11, Aviva K. Bobb, Presiding
DETERMINE OWNERSHIP (PC 850) - Matter continued

04/13/2009 at 01:30 pm in Department 11, Aviva K. Bobb, Presiding
DETERMINE OWNERSHIP (PC 850) (TRANSFERRED TO D-9 F/W) -Transferred to different departmnt [sic]

04/13/2009 at 01:30 pm in Department 9, Reva Goetz, Presiding
DETERMINE OWNERSHIP (PC 850) (CONTINUE AND TRANFER TO D-11) - Matter continued

07/13/2009 at 01:30 pm in Department 11, Michael I. Levanas, Presiding
MOTION/APPL-TEMP RESTRAINING ORDER (APPL FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TOPREVENT REMOVAL OF FUNDS FROMACCTS IN THE NAME OF THELSEY L.FULLER ET ALS. NOW ON DEPOSIT WITH CITIBANK, INGLEWOOD BRANCH) -Matter continued

07/13/2009 at 08:30 am in Department 11, Aviva K. Bobb, Presiding
DETERMINE OWNERSHIP (PC 850) - Matter continued

07/24/2009 at 01:30 pm in Department 11, Michael I. Levanas, Presiding
MOTION/APPL-TEMP RESTRAINING ORDER - Matter continued

07/24/2009 at 01:30 pm in Department 11, Michael I. Levanas, Presiding
DETERMINE OWNERSHIP (PC 850) - Matter continued

08/14/2009 at 01:30 pm in Department 11, Michael I. Levanas, Presiding
MOTION/APPL-TEMP RESTRAINING ORDER - Matter continued

* * *

California Community Property Laws, Family Law section 760. “Except as otherwise provided by statute, all property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in this state is community property” and again, Probate Code Section 100-103 clearly provides that assets acquired during the course of a marriage are presumed to be community unless proven to be separate by the one claiming separate property."

It is not like our parents were married briefly, they were married for 72 years. The Court had within its power to immediately restrain the assets and by doing so would have protected the Conservatee and the Respondent from financial elder abuse.

Thelsey L. Fuller and Edwina Fuller were never divorced or legally separated and no evidence has been presented otherwise.

The lack of a restraining order left both parents vulnerable to elder abuse, financial elder abuse, fiduciary abuse, conspiracy, theft and fraud; which is exactly what took place.

Attorney Daniel k. Lak had refused to give the Conservatee, Edwina Fuller, Thelsey L. Fuller’s 92 year old widow, a copy of her husband’s Trust when requested in writing until so ordered by the Court. These actions are in direct violation of Probate Code Section 16061.7 and may be in violation of elder abuse laws under Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 15610.30 as well.

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954); again Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985; (2) mitigate the damages caused by the Court by issuing a Court order to protect the remaining assets; (3) the Court has within its power to order funds that were removed before the Court could rule on them, be brought back and deposited with the Court along with any penalties; (4) issue an injunction that would prevent the further transfer of real property to another party until a ruling is made by the Court; and (5) launch an investigation into the improper actions of Attorney Daniel K. Lak, Robert L. Fuller, Doris A. Fuller Stewart.

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummary/index.asp

BP 099211