top of page

Federal Case Against William Spiller and L.A. County Dismissed in Blatantly Corrupt Ruling

Motions to Dismiss pending for 16 months, then Dismissal order occurs just hours after discovery demands were served on Defendants. Coincidence?


L.A. "minor's counsel" William Spiller, Jr., previously disciplined by CalBar for moral turpitude.

William Spiller, Jr. is a so-called "Minor's Counsel," often appointed by County of Los Angeles to represent the interest of minor children in family law, probate and child welfare proceedings.


Spiller makes big bucks, like over $1M / year, but only if there are a steady stream of cases. He has provably lied, in court, many times, to justify his appointment and the continuation of cases for years.


We believe that the only reasonable inference is that County of Los Angeles has a policy by which Courts of Law are defrauded as a false pretext to seize children. Dishonesty pays.


The Augustus civil rights case, which I detail in this article, came up because a guardianship and custody of a 15 year old girl was granted at a secret, unnoticed hearing, 5 days after the girl's father was officially cleared of the one (1) vague allegation against him.


As is all too common, this was effectively a governmental kidnapping and extortion plot, which removed the child from her legally-married, biological parents without any legal process whatsoever.


The government was able to pull off this particular crime with the aid of blatant lies spewed by Spiller at that secret, unnoticed hearing. In order to get around the tiny little problem that the girl's parents had not been served notice of the hearing, Spiller fabricated that they were "on the lam" and "avoiding these proceedings," all while deliberately concealing the fact that the father had already been exonerated.


The judge, Gus T. May, "dispensed with" what is otherwise the absolute legal requirement that all parties be served (known as "due process") by invoking a "law" that "lawmakers" made up called Probate Code § 2250(e)(1). This "law" says it's OK to "dispense with" the notice requirements. All Gus T. May had to do was check off a check box on a court form.


In a civil rights complaint that I drafted, the Augustus parents contended that County of Los Angeles has a policy and custom where lies can be told to the Court to justify hiring Minor's Counsel. We also challenge whether Probate Code 2250 was constitutional: Here is the Complaint:



Procedure-wise, this case was bizarre. Normally, and in every other case I know about, in federal court, discovery only opens after the motion to dismiss is over and done. That makes sense, because if the case is just going to be dismissed, then there is no reason to prepare the huge joint scheduling report, and no need to draft discovery requests, and answers, and disputes, and motions to compel, etc.


Here, the motions to dismiss were fully briefed and pending for over an entire year. Meanwhile, instead of ruling on the motions, the federal judge, a guy called Fernando L. Aenelle-Rocha, issued a scheduling order, indicating that discovery was open and the case was going forward. This happened back in September 2022.


Discovery is where cases can be won. You can force Defendants to either admit every element needed to prove the case against them, or else demand they produce all documents and state all facts that support their innocence. Well-crafted discovery demands, which I take pride in, can totally pin down otherwise slippery and dishonest defendants, like William Spiller and County of Los Angeles.


Wanting to see if the case was just going to be dismissed, we waited. We waited more. We waited until yesterday, March 24, 2023, to serve discovery on Spiller and County. The Requests for Admission, Production of Documents, and Special Interrogatories were ingenious (if I do say so myself). Here is a link to the discovery requests, if you're interested.


So, attorney Scott Sobel served the discovery by email at 12:00 noon on March 24, 2023. About 4 hours later, the Judge issued his order dismissing the entire case. This, after the motions to dismiss had been pending for well over a year - 16 months in fact.


Are we supposed to believe that it is a total coincidence this case just "happened" to be dismissed on the same day as discovery was served? Remember, discovery requests are not filed into the case, they are only served on the defendants. Supposedly, the judge would have no way of knowing.


The original hearing date for the Motions was in January 2022, but the judge took it off calendar. What are the odds that, after 16 months, that the judge would dismiss the case a few hours after service of what would have been a devastating round of discovery? It is as likely as the magic bullet that supposedly killed John F. Kennedy. Or that crashing jet liners into the twin towers could make them disintegrate into a mushroom cloud.


Below is the Judge's order of dismissal, and it's erroneous. He is ignoring a number of crucial facts, and dismissing based on the wrong legal standard, citing a case invovling a summary judgment, not a motion to dismiss. Summary judgment is a completely different animal where the admissible evidence is considered. At this stage, the judge was required to assume as true all of the facts we allege. And there would be no denying the facts of this case anyway, they are all a matter of the court record.


This is just another example of the now proven fact that law does not exist. The law is whatever the judge said today. You have no rights. The government will do anything they want to you, including take your child away at a secret hearing with no legal basis. This is what communism looks like in the 21st century.









3 Comments


Kathy Lester
Kathy Lester
Mar 25, 2023

federal rights to lie OPINION, in respect to social workers but you may find some case law

Like

Kathy Lester
Kathy Lester
Mar 25, 2023

https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:cbf732b2-c877-34e5-84f7-5a3fecea582c

Like
Alex Baker
Alex Baker
Mar 25, 2023
Replying to

Thanks Kathy. Yeah, I cited Hardwick and especially Benavidez in the Opposition papers. I hope the Augustuses decide to appeal this. But the appeal judges are just as crooked as the trial judges.

Like
bottom of page