STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, California 94102
COMPLAINT: In Re J. Greg Marcus
Complainant: Albert L. Peia, Plaintiff/Civil Action, Tel# 213-219-7649
The breach of faithful discharge of judicial duties on the part of J. Greg Marcus evidence bad faith, abuse of authority, and intentional disregard of the law as documented hereinafter.
Plaintiff/Complainant’s Response to the Order of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of the State of California, along with said Order is appended hereto as Paragraph #3 hereof, concerning the void/non-appealable order rendered by the J. Marcus Court. Exhibit “A” is plaintiff’s response to J. Greg Marcus’ OSC subsequent to the reversal of his prior dismissal also evidencing a manifest disregard of the law giving rise to the appeal herein.
DECLARATION OF ALBERT L. PEIA
Albert L. Peia, of full age, hereby declares under penalty of perjury as follows:
1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This declaration incorporates Plaintiff’s ‘Declaration and Exhibits In
Response to Order to Show Cause; Memorandum of Points and
1-50, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities offered in response to said Order to Show Cause, and in Support of a Motion for Reconsideration of the Summary Judgment Motion in Light of the Dismissal of the Case on the Return Date for Said Summary Judgment Motion, the Reversal of Same on Appeal on Procedural/Substantive Due Process Grounds, and a Clarification of the Record Apparently Purposefully Ignored Or Misconstrued By J. Marcus who has not faithfully discharged his judicial duties and is the subject of the instant complaint.
Additionally, J. Greg Marcus has consistently and intentionally disregarded the clear law (as per Witkin) applicable in the instant matter as set forth hereinafter.
Plaintiff had appeared for trial in the matter before Judge Keosian at which time plaintiff and defendant Ojeda ultimately arrived at a settlement as to Mr. Ojeda only, for an amount of one half ($7,500) the sum certain amount. The cause of action in that case (as to Mr. Ojeda) was tortious interference with contract (other defendant dismissed at time of prior prove-up / with prejudice), the demurrer to which had been overruled. I subsequently offered, without expiration date, to defendant DeArenosa (this pendingcase) resolution of the within case for the same $7,500 amount (in good faith and in light of my representation to the Appellate Court that a pro tanto reduction would obtain from any recovery in said matter, although a different cause of action). Said offer has not been withdrawn and is hereby stipulated to herein (regardless of whether the separate sum certain is entered by summary judgment/trial/sanction and regardless of punitive damages).
It should be further noted that the subject defendant “accorded protection” by J. Marcus’ unethical/wrongful conduct had committed perjury, had had his answer stricken by the prior Court for failing to appear/respond, among other sanctions as set forth infra in more plenary fashion.
J. Greg Marcus has consistently and intentionally disregarded the clear law applicable in the instant matter as set forth infra.