This is a request/demand sent to Governor Newsom, Rob Bonta and Jimmy Panetta demanding intervention with problems related to state wide industry fraud related to the Real Estate Brokerage and Legal industry, with accute problems needing immediate attention related to the Contractor's State Licensing Board and the Structural Pest Control Board. 

Sent 3:39 PST

The CA DRE (California Department of Real Estate) has had a complaint for 13 months. They've taken no action and I've yet to be interviewed. They were provided enough information about verifiable procedural fraud at face value with incomplete disclosure documents which should have resulted in temporary suspension of multiple Licensees at a minimum.   During a phone conversation in 10/2023, the CA DRE Investigator was asked specifically if the TDS was due to a buyer BEFORE or AFTER contract acceptance. 

• The investigator stated  AFTER contract acceptance, indicating as long as it was delivered prior to close of Escrow, it satisficed state Code 1102.3.  

• When presented with the fact that CA 1102.3 indicates the TDS is due prior to "transfer of title" and Contract Clause 13B states "title is taken" by a buyer at time of Contract Acceptance, making the TDS due PRIOR TO Contract acceptance, the Investigator had no explanation for her position. 

• She then used manipulation techniques to attempt to divert the conversation.

This Request/Demand details that interaction.  Supervisory intervention is requested AND a Position statement has been requested/demanded from CA DRE with a YES / NO answer to -- Is the reference to “taking title” in contract clause 13B synonymous with the “transfer of title” activity referred to in CA 1102.3?  YES or NO

Note to self: They are f--ed no matter their answer. They have licensees suggesting/demanding the handling of it both ways and one group or another has been violating Citizen rights.

California State Level Consumer Protection Systems Exist, But there is NOTHING under the Hood

Consumer Protection for 40 Million for Real Estate, Contracting, Structural Pest Control, Loan Origination, Bond Companies, CA Bar, and more are all supposed to be managed at the State Level and they people doing it are absent, hijacked,  or of _______ descent.  Nothing Criminal other than direct financial manipulation  is getting referred to local District Attorneys and it's been like this for decades.  The break down in retail crime in CA is not leading the breakdown in CA. that is the Caboose!

This doc is draft form. it'll be done in next few days.. 

This is a complaint and a request for investigation into: 

1. Concealment of 38+ year Legal Lobby Driven RICO Scheme

2. Corrupt Court Payroll Records

3. Systemic Problems with Court Process, Court document Access, and Self Help Systems

4. Specific example of self help referral manipulation of fellow citizen

5. Bench Negligence/Fraud with no reasonable systems for recovery

6. other

This is a complaint and a request for investigation into: 

1. Set aside of a complaint for failure to notify of punitive damages -- when that prayer was included boldly in the Demand paragraph of original complaint. 

2. Culver eitehr didn't read complaint at all  which is grossly negligent if not fraudulent OR she read it and ignored content, which is fraudulent. 

This is a complaint and a request for investigation into: 

1. Concealment of 38+ year Legal Lobby Driven RICO Scheme

This is a complaint and a request for investigation into: 

1. Set aside of a Default for failure to notify of punitive damages -- even though that prayer was included boldly in the Demand paragraph of original complaint. 

2. Vallarta either didn't read complaint at all  which is grossly negligent if not fraudulent OR she read it and ignored content, which is fraudulent. 

3. Vallarta then didn't sign or order.  When it was printed, if the story is accurate, she wasn't available to sign it so Judge Culver signed it. 

This is a complaint and a request for investigation into: 

1. Set aside of default when no qualifying acts for setting aside were provided by the Defense Attorney.   It's not believed he was even engaged with the client during the 30 day answer window, but the Judge refused to ask those questions. 

2. Willis made a motion ruling within the first 30 seconds of the hearing then he asked for input.  When input was provided he appeared to be grossly confused and then declared he hadn't made a ruling just moments prior. 

3. It seemed clear 1) he had not personally read the complaint 2) he had not personally been involved in an pre-hearing decision to set aside the default 3) he was NOT aware there were no qualifying acts to set aside the default. 

4. His clerk may have misled him or something else went very wrong.