Federal Court Journeys - Fighting For Freedom Against Corruption and Abuse
Hate Crimes By Doreen Doshay Russell Part 4 - January 30, 2018
Doreen Doshay Russell, never disclosed to me, nor any of the other tenants nor to Santa Monica Court that she and David Garrett Doshay (I think her son or brother/relative) is the legal owners and not her parents, the grand deed was signed in June, 2013 but it wasn’t recorded until January 2014 when the property was sold.
In Court, Judge Cho asked if she was the Power of Attorney and she said yes. She lied to the Judge. Another count of perjury.
Yet the grant deed from her parents to her and her son/brother/relative was signed in June of 2013 and not recorded till January 2014 when the property was sold.
It shows intent. This grant deed should have been recorded using a title insurance company to insure title in June 2013 with the recorded POA attached to it as well as another document, notarized and signed by both Louis and Sylvia Doshay authorizing the transaction ie no wrong doing. She also never disclosed to me nor anybody that she and David Garrett Doshay were now the legal owners as of June 28, 2013 and not her parents Louis and Sylvia Doshay.
This grant deed was executed on June 28, 2013, the eviction started in August of 2013 and she never disclosed it on any of the paperwork even though she stated on the court documents July 12, 2013. None of the documents I have is dated July 12, 2013, it’s possible they also entered my home at that time and stole those documents that was posted on my door or she lied again ie another count of perjury. Either way, whether it’s July 12 or August, notice not one of the court filings has David Garrett Doshay listed as plantiff.
2ndSummonsPostedToMyDooron8-8-2013-ItsDated2012PossiblyPremedit.pdf – Also possible proof of premeditation to evict, prior to Nov 2012.
She filled out the court filing papers as plantiff’s predessor in interest. If it was a POA then the “other” box would have been checked and attached the recorded POA to it, showing to the court that she is in fact the legal power of attorney.
Legal Definition of predecessor in interest
By checking that box she said she held the rights and not her parents. A power of attorney doesn’t hold the rights, they act on behalf of the person.
#4 plantiff’s interest in the premises is as owner even though that grant deed was not recorded, and no power of attorney attached.
She had no authorization from her parents to show up and represent them on their behalf in Santa Monica Eviction court.
Signature of plantiff or attorney, she signed as plantiff, she’s not an attorney, her attorney didn’t sign.
A power of attorney acts on the person’s behalf, Doreen Doshay Russell didn’t act on the behalf of her parents Louis and Sylvia Doshay, she acted on her own behalf.
On the application for issuance of writ of execution, possession or sale, filed on September 30, 2013, she hand filled it out herself, she stated she is the plantiff and signed as the plantiff.
If she was a power of attorney, then her parents names Louis and Sylvia Doshay would have been on the paperwork and not Doreen Doshay Russell as she would have been acting on their behalf, but instead her name was on the paperwork as the plantiff.
This is also perjury as she lied to the Judge when he asked her if she was the power of attorney and she said yes. The Judge never asked her to furnish copies of the recorded Power of Attorney to confirm and verify that and no attorney showed up to represent Louis and Sylvia Doshay in this eviction procedure since Doreen Doshay Russell is not an attorney and can’t legally represent her parents. Doreen Doshay Russell also didn’t disclose to the Judge that she was in the process of selling that property using the POA, how long it’s been listed with a real estate agent, how many real estate agents it was listed with. She also didn’t disclose to the Judge that in June of 2013 her and David Garrett Doshay became the legal owners from Louis and Sylvia Doshay via the Power of Attorney on June 28, 2012, she didn’t disclose David Garrett Doshay as the plantiff anywhere on the eviction court documents nor did David Garrett Doshay show up in eviction court in Santa Monica, the guy that came with her was Matt Acres. She also didn’t disclose to the Judge that, the grant deed was not recorded with the county recorder’s office nor the recorded POA attached to that grant deed showing that, that transaction was known, approved and authorized by Louis and Sylvia Doshay, the original legal owners.
Besides perjury it’s also successfully concealing evidence and fraud.
There’s 20 counts of concealing evidence and fraud, there could be more counts then this. And it’s also 20 counts of perjury.
This is also an illegal eviction.
The property was listed for sale but Doreen Doshay Russell never gave me nor any of the tenants 120 days notice in writing to this fact which is also against the law. I don’t know how many potential buyers entered my apartment unit when I wasn’t there. There was no Notice of Entry served on me nor any other tenants.
(2) If the purpose of the entry is to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, the notice may be given orally, in person or by telephone, if the landlord or his or her agent has notified the tenant in writing within 120 days of the oral notice that the property is for sale and that the landlord or agent may contact the tenant orally for the purpose described above. Twenty-four hours is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. At the time of entry, the landlord or agent shall leave written evidence of the entry inside the unit.
(c) The landlord may not abuse the right of access or use it to
Instead I got harassed with 24 hour inspection notices which was also illegal as I never requested the inspections, she did.
(f) (1) Within a reasonable time after notification of either party’s intention to terminate the tenancy, or before the end of the lease term, the landlord shall notify the tenant in writing of his or her option to request an initial inspection and of his or her right to be present at the inspection. The requirements of this subdivision do not apply when the tenancy is terminated pursuant to subdivision (2), (3), or (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At a reasonable time, but no earlier than two weeks before the termination or the end of lease date, the landlord, or an agent of the landlord, shall, upon the request of the tenant, make an initial inspection of the premises prior to any final inspection the landlord makes after the tenant has vacated the premises. The purpose of the initial inspection shall be to allow the tenant an opportunity to remedy identified deficiencies, in a manner consistent with the rights and obligations of the parties under the rental agreement, in order to avoid deductions from the security. If a tenant chooses not to request an initial inspection, the duties of the landlord under this subdivision are discharged. If an inspection is requested, the parties shall attempt to schedule the inspection at a mutually acceptable date and time. The landlord shall give at least 48 hours’ prior written notice of the date and time of the inspection if either a mutual time is agreed upon, or if a mutually agreed time cannot be scheduled but the tenant still wishes an inspection. The tenant and landlord may agree to forgo the 48-hour prior written notice by both signing a written waiver. The landlord shall proceed with the inspection whether the tenant is present or not, unless the tenant previously withdrew his or her request for the inspection. Written notice by the landlord shall contain, in substantially the same form, the following:
“State law permits former tenants to reclaim abandoned personal property left at the former address of the tenant, subject to certain conditions. You may or may not be able to reclaim property without incurring additional costs, depending on the cost of storing the property and the length of time before it is reclaimed. In general, these costs will be lower the sooner you contact your former landlord after being notified that property belonging to you was left behind after you moved out.”
Gmail11517CumpstonStreetNorthHollywoodCA91601C.pdf – harassing me while I’m moving out.
GmailPropertyInspection11517CumpstonStreetSeptember192013.pdf – harassing me during eviction court proceedings
At the top of the above document on 8/27/2013, Doreen Doshay Russell called Mr. Zuberi Smith without giving her name. How many times did she called anonymously/unknown/impersonating others for complaints for inspections?
425-533-4090 is her phone number
How many people entered my apartment unit without my knowledge nor consent?
And this inspection
All I got was that little paper with the case file number and the little form, notice the handwriting on the little form doesn’t match the inspector’s. Two different people.
a) The LA Department of Public Health went to your unit on 1/2/13 to inspect cockroaches, per your request. You would not open the door or answer your phone. They left a form on your door to call them & you did not.
The note you presented had the claim # for LAHD closed file # 418524
I was at home but I never heard any knock and nobody ever called me, one, I didn’t have a phone, that was shut off when they destroyed my business in Nov 2012. I never contacted them prior to this for cockroaches. I contacted them via email on 1/2/2013 for the mold from their website. I don’t think it’s normal for them to come out that day without making an appointment. So who called and put in a complaint for this inspection and it was never communicated to me.
b) The LAHD was also contacted by you and came out to inspect your complaint on 1/4/13. David Brandon filed #418524, which you attached to the above complaint.
That’s another lie, there’s nothing attached to her email. As for case #418524, David Brandon never left anything on 1/4/2013 showing he was there and they knew I didn’t have a phone, I could only be contacted by email. So whoever made that complaint, I suspect Doreen Doshay Russell either anonymously or impersonating me if this was even for my unit cause David Brandon was unable to verify owner information, I wasn’t the owner, her parents were.
I never heard anything from my complaint about the mold, I suspect they deleted that email when they hacked into my email using my login/passwords they stole after breaking into my home with their keys.
I spoke to both LAHD and the public health on 2/7/2018, they have 2 different case numbers, the case number written on that little note is not public health’s case number’s, it’s LAHD’s case number, so this note left from the public health has a different case number then the case number that was written, it’s also in a different handwriting then the inspector and different ink. So what they did was attach a different case number to the note, so that I would think that case number is for that case. It’s called manipulation and it’s on purpose.
I also found out on 2/7/2018 this complaint was for unit #2, not unit #3, I was told by LAHD for that case number 418524. So who contacted department of health, environmental health and set up that appointment for 1/2/2013? Who made the complaint? It wasn’t me but she accused me of knowing about it, making the complaint and not answering my door nor phone.
Doreen Doshay Russell and her accomplices ran covert ops, they wanted to be anonymous, the question is, how many ops did these people run?
As for the transfer from Louis and Sylvia Doshay to Doreen Doshay Russell and I think her son or brother/relative David Garrett Doshay, for title to insure, the POA should have accompanied this grant deed and it’s not. You usually attach to the grant deed, the recorded POA lets the title insurance company and the county recorder’s office know that it’s a valid, legal and authorized transaction otherwise it could cause title insurance problems later as well as fraud.
Copyright © 2017, 2018, 2019 FedCourt.info All Rights Reserved.