Steven Fuller (Steven Baines)

Plaintiff alleges as a result of Defendants' wrongful actions, Plaintiff lost his home, car, driver's license, and State Bar license, thereby "preventing him from earning a living" and "result[ing] in Plaintiff becoming homeless, living in the streets, suffering from severe depression, anxiety, and [Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder] PTSD." Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 13-15, 78, 87, 125-26, 139, 153, 175.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20171106604

Karma is a bitch!

Daniel got his.

I can't wait for you to get yours.

BAM! ¤º°`°º‹(•¿•)›º°`°º¤

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY & FRAUD

Breach of fiduciary duty commonly falls under the following three categories:

1. Breach of reasonable care (negligence) [CACI 4101];

2. Breach of duty of loyalty [CACI 4102] ; and/or

3. Breach of confidentiality [CACI 4103].

Of course, intentional wrongs such as fraud (fiduciary fraud) as well as negligent misrepresentation also constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.

The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are:

(1) Duty: Existence of a fiduciary duty;

(2) Breach: The breach of that duty; and

(3) Causation of Damages: Damage proximately caused by that breach.

 Mosier v. Southern California Physicians Insurance Exchange (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1044.

Note: In certain cases, punitive damages may be available in specifically defined egregious cases (Hobbs v. Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Incorporated (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 174). 

But attorney’s fees are not generally recoverable in breach of fiduciary causes of action (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 1512, 1528).  The measure and types of damage relief available in breach of fiduciary claims depend on the nature of the breach.

Because breach of fiduciary duty is a hybrid of a contract and tort action, courts sometimes modify, and/or vary in their interpretations of issues such as, for example, damages and the statute of limitations.

Fiduciary California

FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION LAW IN CALIFORNIA

California law allows persons to recover damages for intentional fraud as well as negligent misrepresentations if certain elements are sufficiently plead and proved.

WHAT IS FRAUD?

Fraud is using deceit or dishonest means for the purpose of depriving another of money, property or a legal right.

This article discusses types of fraud, pleading and proving the elements thereof.

TYPES OF CIVIL TORT FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION:

Intentional fraud and deceit occur when the perpetrator uses deceit (false important facts) to convince the victim to rely on the false facts.  Then the victim reasonably relied on and was harmed by the deceit.

Promissory fraud occurs when the perpetrator makes a promise that is important to the transaction that he or she never intends to (and never does) perform, in order to induce the victim to rely victim rely on the promise.  Then the victim must reasonably rely on and be harmed by the false promise.

Compare breach of contract where a party makes a genuine promise but later breaks the promise.

Concealment fraud occurs when there is a fiduciary or other relationship between the parties where there is a duty of full disclosure. The concealing person, with an intention to deceive, does not disclose important facts that the concealing person knows but the victim does not and could not know. Further, the victim reasonably relied on and was harmed by the concealment.

Embezzlement: “Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been intrusted [entrusted]” (Criminal CA Penal Code Section 503).  From the civil relief standpoint, embezzlement may create various causes of action such as, for example, conversion (wrongful taking of property), fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Constructive fraud (negligent misrepresentation) occurs when the perpetrator misrepresents to the victim that an important false fact is true.  But the perpetrator may have honestly believed that the false representation is true.  Yet, the perpetrator had no reasonable grounds for believing the representation was true when he or she made it; and he or she intends that victim rely on the representation.  The victim must reasonably rely on and be harmed by the false representation.

Civil fraud, deceit and misrepresentation are defined in Civil Code Sections 1709, 1710, 1572 and 1573.

Fraud, Deceit & Misrepresentation

Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when one makes representation with intent to deceive and with the knowledge that it is false. An action for fraudulent misrepresentation allows for a remedy of damages and rescission.

$107,692.30 <----- click here

See; link is below:

Case Number:  BP099211
FULLER, EDWINA – CONSERVATORSHIP
Case Taken Under Submission August 11, 2015

Case Number:  BP135381
FULLER, EDWINA - DECEDENT
Case Taken Under Submission August 12, 2015

http://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/

8625 S. 12th Ave, Inglewood, CA 90305 Former Home of Thelsey L. Fuller

FOR SALE $499,999

There were all sorts of remedies to have kept this home in the family. 

But, that is not what Steven Anthony Fuller wanted.

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/8625-S-12th-Ave_Inglewood_CA_90305_M29142-42945

Misappropriation [Embezzlement] of Estate Assets - $107,692.30

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

In Re the Estate of EDWINA FULLER CASE NO. BP 135381


It is alleged that $107,692.30 was misappropriated from the Estate of Edwina J. Fuller by Steven A. Fuller with the assistance of Atty. Teddie J. Randall.

Edwina J. Fuller passed away on 02 June 2012, her conservatorship ended upon her death and thus became "the Estate of Edwina J. Fuller" and subject to California Probate Code.

$107,692.30 was paid to the Estate of Edwina J. Fuller on 29 September 2014 by Atty. Tala R. Davis in her capacity as Successor Trustee of the Thelsey L. Fuller Trust and from the Estate of Thelsey L. Fuller [LASC Case# BP 122 665] by Comerica Bank check #000250402 to Mr. Steven A. Fuller. 

No accounting has been made to the court in regards to the $107,692.30 received by Mr. Steven A. Fuller in connection with the court cases:

LASC Case# BP 099 211 Fuller, Edwina - Conservatorship 

LASC Case# BP 135 381 Fuller, Edwina - Decedent

Click on image to enlarge

But, instead those monies have been excluded from any accounting filed by Atty. Teddie J. Randall and his client Mr. Steven A. Fuller with the court in regards to the Estate of Edwina J. Fuller and or the cases cited above.



That these monies were taken without being reported to the court, without the consent of the court and without the oversight of the court constitutes fraud and financial elder abuse against the beneficiaries of the Estate of Edwina J. Fuller.

Shirley Ritchey, daughter
Sandra Arnold, daughter
Robert Fuller, son
Doris Fuller, daughter

That those monies have been embezzled and fraudulently converted is a violation of statutory law.

It is further alleged that Steven A. Fuller owes each beneficiary $21,538.46, their portion of the $107,692.30 paid to the Estate of Edwina J. Fuller by the Estate of Thelsey L. Fuller. That California Probate Law should have been applied by the court before any monies were distributed or confiscated by Steven A. Fuller and or any of his attorneys.

FIRST AND FINAL ACCOUNT AND REPORT OF ADMINISTRATOR; PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF DISBURSEMENTS; PETITION FOR STATUTORY FEES AND COMMISSIONS; FOR EXTRAORDINARY FEES; AND FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION [PROBATE CODE 10900-1100, 10954] 

Set for hearing 16 June 2015, 8:30 AM, Department 5, The Honorable Maria E. Stratton

More to come, watch this space.*

*Objections to the accounting were filed 04/17/2015.

TRUTH TO POWER

Los Angeles County Superior Court Cases
BP099211, BP118616, BP122665,  BP135381

2nd District Court of Appeal
B241450
B241452

Re: BP122665 THELSEY L. FULLER TRUST DATED JULY 23, 2008

First off, had Mr. Thelsey L. Fuller been placed on the witness stand these cases would have been over a very long time ago and all of the attorneys involved would have collected a whole lot less in attorney fees.

There is no deposition or testimony by Thelsey L. Fuller.  

He was not deposed and he was not called to the witness stand.

He wasn't even allowed to be present during mediation.

Steven A. Fuller and Sandra Jones Anderson had 15 months to place the man whom they were suing on the witness stand which they failed to perform.

It is alleged that Atty. Anderson and Atty. Lak drug the case out in order to inflate their attorney fees.

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

http://benamarine.blogspot.com/2014/08/probate-notes-lasc-bp099211-for-11.html

LIES! Perjury of Steven A. Fuller

Background

Steven purchased a home at 4004 Degnan Blvd, Los Angeles on 06/12/2007 for $625,000.00

Within the next six months immediately after purchasing the home mentioned above, Steven Fuller was faced with foreclosure and the immediate need for increased revenue/income.

http://benamarine.blogspot.com/2014/07/lies-of-steven-fuller-lasc-case.html

Selling the home $100,000.00 below fair market value, an act of financial elder abuse, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now he is demanding $125,000.00 for something that he volunteered to do and something that mother never agreed too.  

Yeah, dude wants to be rewarded via the civil action in L.A. Superior Court case BP 099211 et al. petitioning the Court to reward him for his fuck ups.

What he won't do is admit to the things that he did wrong in financially abusing his elderly siblings.

He coerced and intimidated his sisters in order for his friends er, attorneys, to get rich

http://benamarine.blogspot.com/2014/07/dude-sold-mothers-home-100000-below.html

---

It is alleged that Patrick J. Barnitt and Jeanne M. Fitzgerald as Successor Trustee and Attorney for Successor Trustee colluded and conspired with Steven A. Fuller to sell the Thelsey L. Fuller Trust real estate assets and to circumvent the appeal pending before the 2nd Appeal Court.

The Trust fifty-percent interest in the single-family residence, 1916 N. Belhaven Ave, is $150,000.00 the valuation of which is based on a good faith estimate pursuant to Probate Code section 1063(a).

The fifty-percent interest of the Estate of Edwina Fuller was offered up for sale by Steven A. Fuller, theTrust fifty-percent interest was offered up for sell by Jeanne M. Fitzgerald and confirmed sold by the Court for $76,000.00.  Prior to the sale Steven A. Fuller, Patrick J. Barnitt and Jeanne M. Fitzgerald were notified that if the assets were to be sold they needed to be sold for fair market value to prevent a financial loss to the Thelsey L. Fuller Trust and the Estate of Edwina Fuller.

The actions of Patrick J. Barnitt, Jeanne M. Fitzgerald and Steven A. Fuller in the selling of the fifty-percent interest of the Trust asset and the fifty-percent interest of the Estate of Edwina Fuller in the property noted above for far below fair market value is financial elder abuse and against the beneficiaries of the Thelsey L. Fuller Trust and the Estate of Edwina Fuller i.e. Shirley, Sandra, Robert and Doris.

http://benamarine.blogspot.com/2014/05/conspiracy-to-sell-trust-assets-below.html

---

In the very last conversation that I had with Mr. Thelsey L. Fuller, my maternal grandfather [the victim of elder abuse, financial elder abuse this blog is dedicated too], a mere twenty or so days before his death, I advised him not to trust anyone and his response was, "I know."

That said, I knew at an early age that there was a serious case of dysfunction in the family which is one of the reasons that I decided to leave California in 1990 and never to return for any reason.

Now, Steven Fuller has always attempted to portray himself as an upstanding person but, I knew from past experience that he had what I believed to be several issues. I believe him to be arrogant, egotistical, spoiled, narcissistic, conceited and self-absorbed.

Steven did take care of Momma without a doubt but, let me be clear everyone in the family believed that he did so on a voluntary basis. Truth be told, evidently he didn't. From what I understand, from what I believe and from what has come to fruition in reality is he took care of Momma for financial gain. As far as I know the only member of the family that has agreed that he should be reimbursed for some of his expenses is my mother.

He demanded money from Mr. Thelsey L. Fuller for taking care of Momma and when he didn't get it he sued him.

Let me make a very strong point, before Daddy had fallen ill and still able to live on his own, Steven's goal was always to sale real estate that was not his own but, instead that which belonged to his alleged father and mother.

After the death of both parents he was successful in the sale of the Trust real estate asset in Compton, CA [far below fair market value].  But, he failed or should I say he was thwarted in the sale of the Trust real estate asset located in Inglewood when a complaint was filed against his hand-picked Successor Trustee - Patrick J. Barnitt and Barnitt's attorney - Jeanne M. Fitzgerald with the California State Bar. It should be noted that it was believed that Barnitt was not looking out for the best interest of the Trust or the beneficiaries thereof but, instead doing the bidding of Steven A. Fuller when the Trust assets were being offered up for sale far below fair market value.  Mr. Barnitt and his attorney, Ms. Fitzgerald were advised and admonished that several beneficiaries did not want the Compton asset confirmed and sold far below fair market value but, relisted instead at fair market value if it had to be sold. The sale went through anyway. The asset was sold to pay debts incurred by Steven Fuller in pursuit of his lawsuit against the man that put a roof over his head, fed, clothed and raised him.  I believe this was done to spite Robert and Doris and to liquidate the assets before the appeal B241450 was heard in the 2nd Appellate Court. Not to be left unmentioned the fact that one of the very first things that attorney Sandra Jones Anderson [Steven's attorney] did was place a lien on the Belhaven property.

http://benamarine.blogspot.com/2014/04/steven-fuller-not-to-be-trusted.html

Thomas Baines, Steven's alleged father.

Steven Fuller Baines

Amazing that it took 60 years to learn the whole truth about my family.

Monica Post

LIES! of Steven A. Fuller, LASC Case #BP099211; BP122665

LIES! Perjury of Steven A. Fuller

Background

Steven purchased a home at 4004 Degnan Blvd, Los Angeles on 06/12/2007 for $625,000.00
http://losangeles.blockshopper.com/property/5033015023/4004_degnan/

Within the next six months immediately after purchasing the home mentioned above, Steven Fuller was faced with foreclosure and the immediate need for increased revenue/income.

Click on images to increase size.

Testimony of Steven Fuller, pages 49 - 55 follows:

It must be noted that the property located at 1916 N. Belhaven Ave. in which Carol resided was not the property of Steven Fuller but, instead the property of Mr. Thelsey L. Fuller and his wife, Mrs. Edwina J. Fuller.

Therefore, it was not Steven's decision whether or not Carol paid rent or not, that decision ultimately belonged to Thelsey and Edwina Fuller, Carol's parents.

The amount agreed to was $300.00 per month not $350.00 as Steven testified too.

Also, Quentin Hadnott, Edwina's great-grandson, lived in the home and is alleged to have provided caregiver services sixty-percent of the time i.e. in Steven's absence.

Steven also had boarders in the home at the time as well.

Wall Street was to big to fail in the third quarter of 2008, that is when almost everyone took a huge hit in the financial markets...  It was not and is not the families responsibility to cover Steven's bad investments or his debts.

Steven Fuller did not drop the suit against Carol, the judge wouldn't allow it.

Keep in mind, that Steven had already filed his lawsuit against Mr. Thelsey L. Fuller for financial gain as well.

Mrs. Edwina J. Fuller never sued her husband for anything, not even alimony nor child support.

Steven Fuller did not drop his law suit against Carol.

He lost.

As far as Steven's law suit against Mr. Thelsey L. Fuller is concerned, Atty. Sandra Jones Anderson had every opportunity over the course of 15 months to place Mr. Thelsey L. Fuller on the witness stand or to have him deposed which she failed to perform.

Robert Fuller made sure that Mr. Thelsey L. Fuller was in the courtroom and available to testify on several occasions.

Continuance, upon continuance ruled the day, as a direct result of which Atty. Anderson has been rewarded with over $50,000.00 in attorney fees that will be collected and paid from the estates of  Mr. & Mrs. Thelsey L. Fuller once the real estate is sold and the various court cases are settled.

Had Mr. Thelsey L. Fuller been placed on the witness stand or deposed the initial court case would have been over circa 2008.

Also, it is alleged that Atty. Daniel K. Lak has collected in excess of $100,000.00 from Robert Fuller on these actions.

“Q   AND ARE YOU AND YOUR SIBLINGS ALL THE CHILDREN
OF EDWINA AND THELSEY FULLER?

A   I WOULD SAY YES, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS
BEEN DISPUTES.

Q   AND THE DISPUTE HAS BEEN ABOUT WHOM?

A   DORIS AND MYSELF.”

Image above - Thomas Baines (sp), Steven Fuller's alleged father.

Images below - Steven Fuller

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Dude sold mother's home $100,000 below fair market value

Selling the home $100,000.00 below fair market value, an act of financial elder abuse, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now he is demanding $125,000.00 for something that he volunteered to do and something that mother never agreed too.  

Yeah, dude wants to be rewarded via the civil action in L.A. Superior Court case BP 099211 et al. petitioning the Court to reward him for his fuck ups.

What he won't do is admit to the things that he did wrong in financially abusing his elderly siblings.

He coerced and intimidated his sisters in order for his friends er, attorneys, to get rich off of both deceased parents estates.

How does one charge your mother for rent? 

See below:

Threats from Atty. Teddie Randall and Steven Fuller

On Monday, June 30, 2014 3:01 PM, Randall T wrote:

VIA: EMAIL

June 30, 2014

Mr. Steven Fuller has directed  me to disparaging comments that you have make regarding me in your blog.   You have been constantly  besieging me by various internet accusations in which you outlining me in a negative or condescending manner.  I believe that your conduct is undertaken to  foster negative reactions against me in an attempt to promote your mother’s  positions in various court actions. 

 I  successfully represented your mother in  in a trust matter.   Recovering for her an interest whereby she was disinherited.  Since your conduct is in her name via a  power of attorney she gave you, I view your activity as an extension of her.  Such continuous internet activities by you is emotional and professionally disruptive to me personally and professional life.  

As you may or may not be aware the state of California has enacted various laws regarding internet harassment, calculated to inflict emotional or physical harm.

Black's Law Dictionary, defines such internet harassment as:

    "A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person." 

Cyberstalking is defined as: The use of the Internet, email or other electronic communications to stalk, and generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors.. Sanctions range from misdemeanors to felonies.

Cyberharassment  generally is  defined as not involving a credible threat. Cyberharassment usually pertains to threatening or harassing email messages, instant messages, or to blog entries or websites dedicated solely to tormenting an individual.

CIVIL CODE

SECTION 1708-1725

1708.  Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.

1708.7.  (a) A person is liable for the tort of stalking when the plaintiff proves all of the following elements of the tort:

       (1) The defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which was to follow, alarm, or harass the plaintiff. In order to establish this element, the plaintiff shall be required to support his or her allegations with independent corroborating evidence.

       (2) As a result of that pattern of conduct, the plaintiff reasonably feared for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member. For purposes of this paragraph, "immediate family" means a spouse, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any person who regularly resides, or, within the six months preceding any portion of the pattern of conduct, regularly resided, in the plaintiff's household.

       (3) One of the following:

       (A) The defendant, as a part of the pattern of conduct specified in paragraph (1), made a credible threat with the intent to place the plaintiff in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member and, on at least one occasion, the plaintiff clearly and definitively demanded that the defendant cease and abate his or her pattern of conduct and the defendant persisted in his or her pattern of conduct.

    

       (b) For the purposes of this section:

           (1) "Pattern of conduct" means conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "pattern of conduct."

              (2) "Credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that communicated by means of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate family.

              (3) "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of

the United States Code.

             (4) "Harass" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional  distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.

               (c) A person who commits the tort of stalking upon another is liable to that person for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages pursuant to

Section 3294.

    I am not outlining  internet law to you simply to be verbose.  If necessary I will take what ever action necessary against you and the principal (i.e. person making you their “attorney-in-Fact”) to protect myself or my professional representation.  Such actions can be long and expensive.

Attorney Teddie J Randall

Steven Fuller Jun 30 at 5:02 PM

To Me, Randall T

I saw your smear campaign on your blog.  I spoke with your mother, about her request to stay in my home while her apartment is renovated.  I informed her that I do not think it wise - not because I do not wish for her to be in my home, but because of your constant internet harassment.  The devil comes to destroy long established relationships, indeed - relationships that preexisted your birth.  While you do his bidding, I can only imagine if your mother fell or something happened to her while in my home - what a terrible campaign of smear and threats against me there would be.  However, there are legal ramifications that may result against you, in that I know my sister does not, in fact, approve of your behavior.   You are acting outside of the scope of your responsibilities and should be dealt with accordingly. 

Steven Fuller 

Journalism is a method of inquiry and literary style that aims to provide a service to the public by the dissemination and analysis of news and other information. Journalistic integrity is based on the principles of truth, disclosure, and editorial independence. Journalistic mediums can vary diversely, from print publishing to electronic broadcasting, and from newspaper to television channels, as well as to the web, and to digital technology.

In modern society, the news media is the chief purveyor of information and opinion about public affairs. Journalism, however, is not always confined to the news media or to news itself, as journalistic communication may find its way into broader forms of expression, including literature and cinema. In some nations, the news media is still controlled by government intervention, and is not fully an independent body.

In a democratic society, however, access to free information plays a central role in creating a system of checks and balance, and in distributing power equally amongst governments, businesses, individuals, and other social entities. Access to verifiable information gathered by independent media sources, which adhere to journalistic standards, can also be of service to ordinary citizens, by empowering them with the tools they need in order to participate in the political process.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Financial Abuse

Financial Abuse

Elder financial abuse spans a broad spectrum of conduct, including:

• Taking money or property
• Forging an older person's signature
• Getting an older person to sign a deed, will, or power of attorney through deception, coercion, or undue influence
• Using the older person's property or possessions without permission
• Promising lifelong care in exchange for money or property and not following through on the promise
• Confidence crimes ("cons") are the use of deception to gain victims' confidence
• Scams are fraudulent or deceptive acts
• Fraud is the use of deception, trickery, false pretence, or dishonest acts or statements for financial gain
• Telemarketing scams. Perpetrators call victims and use deception, scare tactics, or exaggerated claims to get them to send money. They may also make charges against victims' credit cards without authorization
• http://www.preventelderabuse.org/elderabuse/fin_abuse.html

LASC BP 122665 - Violation of the Court Order a good thing

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/?CT=CI
BP122665 [BP099211 & BP135381]

That the Trust real estate asset located in Inglewood was not turned over to Patrick J. Barnitt, Successor Trustee [& Jeanne M. Fitzgerald, Steven Fuller by extension] is a good thing.

Otherwise, the asset would have been sold far below fair market value as what happened with the Trust real estate asset located in Compton.

That Doris's daughter, Ijnanya, has been living in the Trust asset without paying rent for over two-and-a half years; while the daughter of Thelsey L. Fuller & Edwina J. Fuller has been paying rent to live in the Trust asset located in Compton many more years is a travesty.

Doris and Robert were ordered by the court to turn over all Trust assets but, being that they didn't follow the orders of the court and turnover control of the Inglewood property... the property was saved from certain sell at the hands of Steven Fuller and his cohorts.

Whether or not Ijnanya resided in the property located in Inglewood and allegedly protected the property and paid the utilities is irrelevant. Someone, be it Doris, Robert or Ijnanya or even the Successor Trustee - Patrick J. Barnitt should be on the hook for the rent that should have been paid and collected from the occupant(s). [Protecting the Trust from financial loss]

Patrick J. Barnitt as the Successor Trusttee was paid to have Ijnanya evicted but, instead took the MONEY! for that purpose and converted it, claiming the funds as "administrative fees" for the administration of the Trust. As of this writing we are unaware of any services to the Trust that Mr. Barnitt has performed in regards to the Trust of Thelsey L. Fuller other than the sale of the Trust's 50% interest in the Belhaven asset [far below fair market value] and the attempted sale of the Inglewood asset at the request of Steven Fuller and in total disregard and circumvention of the wishes of the beneficiaries to the Thelsey L. Fuller Trust.

It must be noted that over a period of 15 months no one saw fit to put Mr. Thelsey L. Fuller on the witness stand for his input as to the resolution of HIS ASSETS.

Someone needs to be held accountable.

The authorities always want the help of the public, a cooperating witness [until they get it].

BACKGROUND

19 JANUARY 2014

Trust Asset Listing No Longer Active

The property you are searching for is no longer an active listing.

8625 South 12TH Avenue, Inglewood, CA

$249,000

0 bedrooms

MLS #/Web ID: 13662051

http://www.weichert.com/46722501/

See:

Thelsey S. Fuller Trust (sic) set to lose over $545,800.00

See also:

http://benamarine.blogspot.com/search?q=8625

http://benamarine.blogspot.com/search?q=1916

COMPARABLE SALES 1916 N. Belahven Ave [$153,000] 
2022 N Belhaven Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$329,000 on Mar 04, 2014

13024 Clovis Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$328,000 on Mar 03, 2014

12803 Mckinley Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$310,000 on Jan 30, 2014

13018 Stanford Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$300,000 on Nov 27, 2013

2001 N Dern Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$297,500 on Dec 30, 2013

13118 Mckinley Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$275,000 on Dec 20, 2013

13236 Mckinley Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$275,000 on Oct 29, 2013

2105 N Central Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$270,000 on Jan 02, 2014

13326 Stanford Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$265,000 on Nov 20, 2013

12218 Slater Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$265,000 on Mar 03, 2014

2804 W 134Th St, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$255,000 on Oct 08, 2013

1908 N Salinas Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$250,000 on Dec 27, 2013

2030 N Keene Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$230,000 on Nov 01, 2013

12914 Keene Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90059
$230,000 on Mar 14, 2014

http://www.realtor.com/soldhomeprices/90059

That the home located at 1916 N. Belahven Ave was sold far below fair market value is "Financial Elder Abuse" by Steven A. Fuller, Patrick J. Barnitt and Jeanne M. Fitzgerald and against Shirley, Sandra, Robert & Doris.

05/29/2013 Creditor's Claim (STEVEN A. FULLER - $124,700.00 )
Filed by Claimant