Judge and prosecutor, both Jews, caught in conspiracy

Judge And Prosecutor, Both Jews, Caught In Conspiracy

Are Jews driven by their Talmud and The Protocols of Zion, or would these two Jews have also conspired against one of their own? You be the judge.
In 1992 I was charged by the state of California with two felonies, theft of trade secrets, for erasing programs I had brought to work as tools of my trade. Trade secret law was still in its infancy making it easy for a corrupt cop of the Los Angeles Police Department, Paul F. Geggie, to take the lies of Aquatec's vice-president, Mark W. Hancock, and build a case on those lies with lies of his own. Case was tried in the Superior Court of California, county of Los Angeles, with Leon Kaplan as the presiding judge and Robert Schuit as prosecutor, both Jews. My attorney, Douglas Demaret, a decent and trusting fellow was no match for these conspirators and I was found guilty of a misdemeanor.
I hired Jill Hatfield of 'Hatfield and Hatfield' as attorney on appeal and found out that she was a fraud who should be barred from practice. She not only billed me for electronic research that she allegedly did for which she could not produce a billing record when asked, but she refused to expose forgery of jury instructions. First she attempted to discredit my discovery by telling me that jury instructions are often modified before presentation to the jury. However, when I pointed out that the judge 'allowed' the prosecutor to 'borrow' instructions already discussed and signed and that I found deletions on the 'borrowed' set and not on my attorney's copies, as well as one key instruction missing, she had the nerve to tell that she can't bring that up on appeal because as she put it: "I have to practice in front of these people."
I fired her and substituted myself as attorney on appeal and filed a brief adding judicial misconduct and forgery, but the appellate court disregarded those because as one of the judges put it, "the court of appeals is not the proper forum to address such issues". However, all three judges ruled in my favor, and as it turns out their ruling reflects what I presented as language taken out by forgery. Below is their finding.
Criminal Code § 499c - Theft Of Trade Secrets

Notes of Decisions
To convict defendant of fraudulently appropriating a trade secret entrusted to him, prosecution must show that item appropriated was, in fact, a "trade secret"; prosecutor must show, among other things, that item was a source of competitive advantage. People v. Pribich (App. 2 Dist. 1994) 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 113, Cal. App.4th 1844.
Prosecutor must present more than mere conclusory and generalized allegations that item appropriated conferred a competitive advantage, in order to demonstrate that item qualifies as "trade secret" within meaning of criminal appropriation Statute. People v. Pribich (App. 2 Dist. 1994) 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 113, 21 Cal.App.4th 1844
State failed to show that information on computer discs that employee refused to return to employer was such as to confer any competitive advantage on employer, so that employee could not be convicted of fraudulently appropriating "trade secrets" entrusted to him, not withstanding employer's testimony that he would not want his competitors to know of information and that information would be of "great interest" to competitors; employer's conclusory and generalized allegations were not sufficient to show that information appropriated was in fact, a "trade secret," especially in light of testimony of employee's expert witness that information would confer no competitive advantage. People v. Pribich (App. 2 Dist. 1994) 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 113, 21 Cal.App.4th 1844.

PLEASE NOTE: Materials presented below are not to be reproduced without my express permission. Evidence of forgery and destruction of Jury instructions is presented here for public view only in order to make visitors aware of the corruption in our judicial system.
Boris Pribich
Below are some of the instructions signed by the judge that the prosecutor 'borrowed' with originals on top and forgeries below with comments. My attorney said that the prosecutor took him to his office where he ran copies for him which I later found and compared to those that were presented to the jury. My attorney had to know better - after both parties agree on jury instructions they have to be kept by the court clerk as provided by the rules of court!

The deletion in the instruction above allowed the forger to reduce the weight of three key 'special instructions' signed by the judge and 'given as requested' which the jury was to accept as facts stipulated and agreed upon by both sides. Finding of the appellate court reflects the statements in those instructions, pointing to the fact that the forger was a seasoned expert.

Here the forger took out the statement that this was stipulated upon for the jury to accept as a fact, reducing the significance of the instruction to plain language. Take note of the check mark the forger added in the 'requested by defendant' window and the hand written note 'special instruction "I"' to replace his deletion leaving out that this was stipulated upon as a proven fact.

For the second time the forger reduces a 'special instruction' to plain language.

Now for the third time the forger reduces a 'special instruction' to plain language.
This 'special instruction' wasn't forged because it just had to go. So, while the prosecutor was making copies for my attorney he removed and destroyed it. What I found in my attorney's files was a copy of what he submitted for the judge's signature. It is worth noting that the appellate court's finding significantly reflects the language in this 'missing' instruction.

The forged instruction above gives Hancock's testimony weight equal to that of my expert witness even though uncorroborated. The appellate court's finding confirms that.

The forgery above instructs the jury to choose between two offenses as stated by "either or both" with "any or all" deleted.
As can be seen above I was charged with two offenses - 502(c)(4) and 499c(b)(2).
As can be seen above Schuit added 499c(b)(1) which I was not charged with. As can be seen below, my attorney requested to have the charge deleted and Kaplan ordered Schuit to do so. However, the charge was not deleted and the jury had no choice but to find me guilty as they were not left with a third option of "any or all".
Please note how 'stern' Kaplan appears when he tells Schuit that "probably is not good enough". The instruction was not retyped, Kaplan read "Steals, takes, carries away or uses without authorization a trade secret" to the jury, and my attorney said nothing. After the trial several jurors said that something was missing in the presentation of this case, couldn't say what, but felt compelled to find me guilty of something.
More forgeries and 'judicial misconduct' to come...

Breaking The Silence