| Natasha Thompson---scam artist |
| A black fraud queen |
| 7th of Sep, 2011 by blackwing |
Natasha Thompson is the owner of the following company, where she has scammed many unsuspecting , unfortunate people:
Originally based in Culver City, California, also has another address:
This is her most updated/current business address:
3520 Overland Avenue
Space A24
Los Angeles, California 90034.
This company falsely poses as a "supplement" company.
The owner is:
Natasha Thompson
Thompson's personal phone numbers are:
(310) 425-6376
(310)425-6397
(310) 425-8571
Her Driver's liscence number is:
B8740124
Her birth date is:
08/10/1982
Her height is:
5'6
Her ethnicity is:
African-American.
She drives:
a Mercedes Benz---grayish or pewter color.
Be aware that, along with another person, Violet Levi, that she has employed, Natasha Thompson was arrested for child molestation. But because of a plea she entered, it was named as a lesser charge.
However, nonetheless, she has molested and ruined the life and future of an innocent little 4-year old girl and the girl's family.
And she continues to wreak havok for many other people, through her scams and fraudulent activities, in her phony "supplement" company: "Maximum Health"
She owns this company, and has been, along with the people she hires as telemarketers, stealing credit card numbers of innocent people and stealing money from people's accounts---and NEVER sending them ANY of the products they ordered.
Thompson has put the company in the name of another woman:
Stephanie Logbicho. But it is Thompson who owns the company.
The company"s DBA is;
Maximum Health, Inc.
Thompson buys leads , people's names, who have previously purchased supplements and/or male enhancement pills from the internet.
Then she , and the people she hires on a commission-only basis, calls these unsuspecting people, posing as the company that they bought supplements from before. She and her staff pretend "to just be following up" on their previous order and "just want to know" how the supplements worked for them. THEN,
BAM!!!
THEY PULL THE WHAMMY AND TRY TO SELL THEM MORE FAKE SUPPLEMENTS.
Once they get the credit card numbers and other info of the customers, they process the really unreasonably high payments through Thompson's company merchant account( of which Thompson has aquired several), just so she can burn customers thru these merchant accounts and avoid penalties)/
Yet the customers NEVER receive the supplements and/or they receive very harmful pills that can cuase serious health problems.
When the upset customers try to get their money back by calling the company, Thompson changes her voice, by pretending to be a Causcasion girl, and lies to the customer that it'll be taken care of----but NOTHING is ever taken care of.
After a lot of trouble, the poor customers have to open a dispute thru their credit card company.
But then Thompson tries to disuade them, by scaring them, by sending them a fake letter.
The fake letter is addressed as:
Dear Card Holder...It then goes on to very nastily state that if they so much as attempt to open a dispute, they'll be charged with fraud.
These poor customers get scared. But what the customers do not know is that, they have not committed any wrongdoing----it is actually Natasha Thompson and hr team of bandits, including
a black man by the name of: Delmas Griffin( Aka: "Josh Farley"), Christine Nasalski, and a convicted child molester by the name of: Violet Levi(approximately 60 years old), who have committed severe fraud.
Back in January 2011, Natasha Thompson had hired a poor woman( a different Violet) , who had worked very hard for her and had done NO wrong. But when the woman found out about the criminal-ring of Natasha Thompson and her co-criminals, the woman quit.
But Natasha Thompson used this poor woman's past to retaliate against her and cause her immense slander and legal problems.
Natasha Thompson is a sleazy, lying, filthy dirt-bag who , along with her aforementioned consorts, is still stealing from people---especially senior citizens.
Natasha Thompson is currently pregnant---or so she has claimed( in order to escape criminal charges).
If she is pregnant, it is a huge shame that such a piece of trash should be allowed to bring other trash, like herself, into this world...Perhaps a future thief and burden on society, just like own self.
Please be aware of this individual:
Natasha Thompson----a very dangerous scam artist and menace to society.
Her company phone numbers are:
(888)254-2664
(310)876-1408
(310)876-1409
Company address:
3520 Overland Avenue
A24
Los Angeles, California 90034.
She also uses the following false names:
"Heidi Miller
"Mary"
"Amanda"
and a slew of other names. |
|
|
|
|
THAT'S A NICE FABRICATED, DELUSIONAL STORY ABOVE, NO DOUBT, WRITTEN BY TERESA VIOLET ARASHEBEN, HERSELF!! (AKA TERESA VILET ARASHEBEN, VIOLET ARASHEBEN, TESSA ARASHEBEN, AND COUNTLESS OTHER NAMES WHICH NO ONE CAN KEEP TRACK OF.
hERE'S THE REAL STORY: THIS MONSTER HAS VICTIMIZED COUNTLESS PEOPLE AS YOU WILL READ BELOW IN ONE OF HER MANY TRANSCRIPTS FROM ONE OF HER MULTITUDES OF COURT CASES. SHE'S ALSO BEEN IMPRISONED FOR 2 YEARS IN STATE PRISON FOR MURDER FOR HIRE AND COUNTLESS OTHER ASSAULTS ON COUNTLESS PEOPLE. (ALL OF WHICH INCLUDE, BURGLARY, GRAND THEFT, FORGERY BY USE OF CREDIT CARDS, VANDALISM, PROSTITUTION, DRUG TRAFFICKING, . ASSAULT, ...ETC... THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. EVERYWHERE SHE GOES, THERE IS ANOTHER VICTIM IN HER PATH!! SHE ALSO DID 2 YEARS IN A PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT FACILITY AND IT OBVIOUSLY DID ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD. SHE CONTINUES TO COMMIT CRIMES EVERYWHERE SHE GOES. SHE IS COMPLETELY INCAPABLE OF TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MESS SHE'S MADE OF HER LIFE AND CONTINUES TO BLAME OTHERS FOR THE BACKLASH SHE RECEIVES FROM HER CONTINUOUS NEED TO DO HARM TO OTHERS. SHE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO SELF CONTROL. AT THE TIME SHE WROTE THE STATEMENT ABOVE, SHE HAD JUST GOTTEN OUT OF PRISON (YET AGAIN)... AND HERE AGAIN, YOU WILL SEE THE HEAVILY LADEN DOCUMENT OF CRIMES SHE HAS COMMITTED, NOTHING EVER CHANGES WITH THIS NIGHTMARE OF AN INDIVIDUAL!! MAKE SURE YOU READ ALL OF THIS.
IF HER IDEA OF MAKING A SUCCESS OF HER LIFE IS THIS, THAT IS EXTREMELY SAD. SHE'S A VERY UNFORTUNATE INDIVIDUAL WHO ACTUALLY THINKS FOR A MINUTE THAT IF SHE GETS ON THE INTERNET AND WRITES TERRIBLE THINGS ABOUT OTHERS, WHILE SHE WRITES POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT HERSELF, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE WHO SHE IS. TERESA, THE REAL STORY IS GOING TO FOLLOW YOU AROUND FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, AS LONG AS YOU ARE OUT TO HURT OTHERS AND TAKE WHAT'S NOT YOURS!! GET SOME REAL HELP!!... SHE ALSO HAS AN OBSESSION ABOUT CHILD MOLESTATION AND HAS WRITTEN SCATHING LIES ON COUNTLESS WEBSITES TO GET REVENGE ON ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAD A PART IN HER SPENDING THE LAST 6 MONTHS IN JAIL. SHE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT EVERYONE IN THE COMPANY "MAXIMUM HEALTH" WHICH IS THE PLACE SHE VICTIMIZED COUNTLESS PEOPLE, INCLUDING CO-WORKERS AND CUSTOMERS. WHEN SHE WAS BUSTED AND SENT TO PRISON, (AGAIN)!! STAY AWAY FROM THIS CRAZY DELUSIONAL PSYCHOPATH!! WE CAN'T WARN YOU ENOUGH!!!
P. v. Arasheben
P. v. Arasheben
Filed 9/23/08 P. v. Arasheben CA2/8
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TERESA VILET ARASHEBEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
B199554
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. SA053271)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elden S. Fox and Lisa B. Lench, Judges. Affirmed as modified with directions.
William J. Capriola, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Peggy Z. Huang, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After Teresa Vilet Arasheben violated the terms and conditions of her probation, the trial court revoked probation and imposed a previously suspended sentence of seven years and four months. Arasheben contends on appeal that: (1) the trial court did not secure a knowing, express, or intelligent waiver of her right to accrued custody credits; (2) the trial court incorrectly calculated the custody credits she did receive, denying her two days of conduct credit; and (3) under Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 (Cunningham), the trial courts imposition of an upper term sentence violated her Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We affirm the judgment, with directions on remand as to Arashebens custody credits.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Teresa Arasheben was charged with four counts of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459; counts 1, 4, 7, and 10);[1]one count of forgery by use of a credit card ( 484f, subd. (b); count 2); two counts of petty theft with a prior ( 666; counts 3 and 12); one count of grand theft of personal property ( 487, subd. (a); count 5); three counts of theft of an access card ( 484e, subd. (d); counts 6, 9 and 11); and one count of attempted grand theft of personal property ( 664/487, subd. (a); count 8). It was further alleged appellant served five prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), and that she suffered one prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
The charges stemmed from two occasions where Arasheben went into spas for facials, was left alone in the treatment room, and stole the credit cards from the wallets of the women working in the salon. Arasheben later used the credit cards to purchase gift certificates.
On January 6, 2005, Arasheben pleaded no contest to four counts of second degree burglary ( 459, counts 1, 4, 7, & 10); one count of forgery by the unlawful use of a credit card ( 484(f), subd. (b); count 2); and one count of petty theft with a prior ( 664/484, subd. (a), 666)). Arasheben also admitted one prior conviction for which she was sentenced to state prison ( 667.5). In exchange, the trial court stated Arasheben would be placed on probation for five years, and that it would impose and suspend execution of a seven year four month prison sentence. Arasheben was to be released to a residential treatment center on condition that she remain at that program for a period of not less than one year for purposes of counseling and addressing certain psychiatric issues in regard to [her] recidivism. The court further advised that it would grant a Romero motion as to a prior serious felony to permit Arasheben to receive probation and regular time credits. The People agreed to dismiss the counts for which the court could not impose any additional time under the law given the constraints of section 654.[2]
The trial court did, in fact, impose and suspend execution of an aggregate term of seven years and four months in the state prison, comprised of: the high term of three years on count 1, based on the prior history in this matter and also the fact the defendant was on parole at the time of the current offense. . . ; one-third of the mid-term of eight months for each of counts 2, 4, 7, 10 and 12; and a one-year enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b). Arasheben was placed on five years formal probation, during which time she was to participate in a 12-month residential program that would include psychiatric and psychological counseling. Arasheben was not to leave the program without court or probation department permission.
On February 15, 2005, Arasheben left the residential program without permission, thereby violating her probation. Probation was summarily revoked on February 17, 2005. On April 25, 2005, the trial court held a probation violation hearing. At the hearing, Arasheben pleaded with the court for a chance to continue in the residential treatment program. After hearing from Arasheben and her counsel, the trial court, Arashebens counsel, and Arasheben had the following exchange:
The Court: Im not going to release her today. If she wants to waive her back time credits, I will reset this for July the 7th, which is the date she was supposed to come back here, and then I will agree to release her to [the residential treatment facility], but Im not going to release her before that. []
Ms. Leeds [Arashebens counsel]: Thank you very much, your Honor.
The Court: Okay. Does she want to come back here on July 7th and waive her back time credits in this matter?
Ms. Leeds: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
The Court: Ms. Arasheben, I want you to listen to me. I get any reports from the county jail that there are problems there, and Im going to advance the matter, bring you back here, and I may change my mind. [] If you comply with your regimen and you behave yourself, on July 7th Im going to release you back to [the treatment center] to complete a 12-month program. [] And you may feel that by doing that Im delaying somewhat your rehabilitation. But I will tell you, youre this close to going off to the Department of Corrections again. Do you understand that? [] I dont want any complaints. I dont want any crying. I dont want any pleading or begging. You agree to come back here on July 7th to go back to [the treatment center]?
The Defendant: Yes, sir.
Arasheben then inquired whether she could ask the court a question, and proceeded to request specific medical orders for herself.
On July 7, 2005, Arasheben returned to court with counsel for further proceedings. After confirming that the treatment center was willing to re-admit Arasheben, the court asked Arashebens counsel: Have you talked to your client . . . and shes amenable to going back to [the treatment center] and following through with the program as previously ordered by the court in lieu of going to state prison for six years? Arashebens counsel answered yes. The court then asked if Arasheben was going to admit the probation violation, and Arasheben answered yes. The court reinstated probation and stated on the record:
Pursuant to 4019 of the Penal Code and 2900.5 of the Penal Code, Ms. Arasheben does waive her previous time credits both actual and good time/work time. She is ordered to serve 158 days in the county jail. She will get credit for 106 actual days plus 52 good time/work time for a total of 158 days. Neither Arasheben nor her counsel made any objection to the courts statement that Arasheben was waiving her previous time credits.
In May 2006, Arashebens probation was again summarily revoked after she was arrested for petty theft. On February 23, 2007, following a probation hearing, the trial court found that Arasheben had violated the terms and conditions of her probation. On May 7, 2007, the trial court executed the previously suspended sentence of seven years and four months. The court awarded 1, 020 days of credit against the sentence. The same day, Arasheben filed a pro per motion to recall the sentence, arguing that the court had not awarded her credit for previous time in custody and [a]t absolutely no time did [she] waive any time credits. Perhaps in July 2005 Judge Fox ordered time in program to start over. But no time credits were waived. On May 25, 2007, the court denied the motion. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. Arashebens Johnson Waiver was Valid
Arasheben contends that she did not waive her past custody or conduct credits. We reject this argument.
A defendant is entitled to credit against a term of imprisonment for days spent in custody before sentencing, as well as days spent in custody after sentencing as a condition of probation. (Pen. Code, 2900.5; People v. Johnson (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1050, 1053 (Johnson).) However, a defendant may also expressly waive such credits against an ultimate prison sentence (commonly known as a Johnson waiver), and trial courts have the authority to condition probation upon a waiver of credits for time in custody. (Johnson, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 1055.) A defendants waiver of custody credits must be knowing and intelligent, which means that the defendant must understand she is giving up custody credits to which she would otherwise be entitled. (Ibid; People v. Arnold (2004) 33 Cal.4th 294, 308 (Arnold); People v. Hilger (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1528, 1532.)
The record reflects that at the April 25, 2005 probation violation hearing, Arashebens counsel expressly advised the court that Arasheben agreed to waive her past custody credits as a condition of the courts agreement to reinstate probation. Accordingly, at the next hearing on July 7, 2005, the court entered an order indicating that Arasheben waived her previous credits. However, Arasheben argues that a Johnson waiver must be personal and express, and, because the trial court neither engaged in a specific dialogue with her directly about waiving the past credits, nor secured her direct statement waiving her custody credits, there was no valid waiver.
Arasheben offers no legal authority for her argument that her counsels statements were not an effective waiver and case law provides otherwise. Counsel may waive all but a few fundamental rights for a defendant. [Citation.]. . . . Included in that narrow exception are such fundamental matters as whether to plead guilty, whether to waive the constitutional right to trial by jury, whether to waive the right to counsel, and whether to waive the privilege against self-incrimination. [Citation.] As to these rights, the criminal defendant must be admonished and the court must secure an express waiver; as to other fundamental rights of a less personal nature, courts may assume that counsels waiver reflects the defendants consent in the absence of an express conflict. [Citation.] (People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 873-874.) Arasheben offers no argument to support her apparent assumption that the entitlement to time creditsa statutory rather than constitutional rightis a fundamental matter that cannot be waived through counsel when the defendant is present in the courtroom and understands the proceedings.
Moreover, there is no evidence that Arashebens counsel was acting alone, or against Arashebens wishes. When determining whether a Johnson waiver was knowing and intelligent we look to the totality of [the] circumstances. (People v. Salazar (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1554, fn. 1 (Salazar).) Here, the record as a whole indicates that Arasheben voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived her past custody credits in exchange for the reinstatement of probation. At the April 25, 2005, hearing, Arasheben and her counsel pleaded with the court for compassion and leniency so that the court might reinstate probation rather than imposing Arashebens suspended sentence. Arasheben was present when the trial court indicated that it would reinstate probation if Arasheben was willing to waive past credits. The trial court raised this issue twice, and when the court asked Arashebens counsel directly if Arasheben would waive her past credits, her counsel answered yes. Arasheben said nothing, even though she had freely spoken during the proceedings, and indeed interrupted later to ask the court a question directly. (Salazar, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1554-1556 [court found defendants Johnson waiver knowing and intelligent where, on more than one occasion, neither defendant nor counsel objected to courts description of the scope of the Johnson waiver].)
Over two months passed, and at the next hearing, when the trial court asked counsel if Arasheben was willing to proceed with the plan set forth by the court at the previous hearing, counsel answered yes, and Arasheben said nothing. The trial court stated on the record that Arasheben was waiving her past credits, and neither Arasheben nor her counsel objected to question or correct the courts statement. Throughout the proceedings at issue in this case, Arasheben felt free to speak directly to the court to ask questions and challenge her counsel. That she did not do so in any of the instances in which the court discussed her waiver of credits indicates she understood and agreed with the waiver her counsel had communicated.
Although the better practice is for sentencing courts to expressly admonish defendants who waive custody creditsunder Johnson about the scope and effect of such a waiver, the failure to include such an explicit advisement will not, however, invalidate a Johnson waiver by which the defendant is otherwise found to have knowingly and intelligently relinquished his or her right to custody credits under section 2900.5. (Arnold, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 309.) Under the totality of the circumstances we conclude that Arashebens Johnson waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.[3]
II. Imposition of the High Term Did Not Violate Arashebens
Constitutional Rights
In 2005, the trial court imposed and stayed a sentence of seven years four months, which included a three-year upper term on one count of second degree burglary. The court imposed the upper term based on the prior history in the matter and because Arasheben was on parole at the time of the current offense. Arasheben contends that under Cunningham, the trial court relied on improper factors to impose the upper term and thereby violated her Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a jury determination by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
While we agree with the Attorney General that appellate review of this issue is impermissible because Arasheben failed to secure a certificate of probable cause (see People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79), we note also that under People v. Towne (2008) 44 Cal.4th 63 (Towne), and People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799 (Black II), we must reject Arashebens arguments. In Black II, our Supreme Court held that if a single aggravating factor has been established by the jurys verdict, the defendants admissions, or the fact of a prior conviction, the trial courts imposition of the upper term does not violate a defendants right to a jury trial, even if the trial court considered other aggravating circumstances in deciding to impose the upper term. (Black II, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 813.) In Towne, our Supreme Court expressly held that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt on aggravating circumstances does not extend to the circumstance that a defendant was on probation or parole at the time of the offense or has served a prior prison term. (Towne, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 79.)
Here, the trial courts decision to impose the high term on count 1 was based in part on the aggravating factor that Arasheben was on parole when she committed the offense in question, and in part on her prior criminal history.These facts were supported by the record and are not impermissible judicial fact finding. (Black II, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 818-820; People v. Yim (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 366, 370-371; People v. Thomas (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 212, 220-223.) As a result, the trial court did not violate Arashebens constitutional rights by imposing the upper term on count 1.[4]
III. Arasheben is Entitled to One Additional Day of Conduct Credit
Arasheben contends that the trial court erred in calculating the conduct credits she had not waived, and was ultimately awarded. The Attorney General agrees that the trial court erred in its calculations, but the parties modified calculations differ by one day. We conclude that the trial court did err, and Arasheben should have received one additional day of conduct credit.
Under Section 4019, a defendant receives two days of good conduct or work credit (conduct credit) for each four-day block of time served. (In re Marquez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 14, 25.) The trial court should combine all days of actual custody before calculating conduct credits. (People v. Culp (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1284.) Then, [t]he proper method of calculating presentence custody credits is to divide by four the number of actual presentence days in custody, discounting any remainder. That whole-number quotient is then multiplied by two to arrive at the number of good/work credits. Those credits are then added to the number of actual presentence days spent in custody, to arrive at the total number of presentence custody credits. (Id. at p. 1283.)
Here, the trial court found:
Arasheben served the following actual days in jail, for which she is entitled to conduct credit:
o between March 24, 2005 and July 7, 2005 (106 days);
o between December 20, 2005 and January 6, 2006 (17 days, not including December 20, which the court included as a day served in the residential facility); and
o between May 3, 2006 and May 7, 2007 (370 days);[5]
This totaled 493 days of custody credits. However, the trial court calculated Arashebens conduct credits based on each separate block of dates, rather than the aggregate number of days in custody. When calculated together, Arasheben should have received a total of 246 conduct credits. (106+17+370 = 493; divided by 4 = 123.25; discounting the remainder = 123; multiplied by 2 = 246.)
The trial court also found that Arasheben served actual days in the residential treatment facility, for which she is not entitled to conduct credit (See People v. Moore (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 783.):
o between July 7, 2005 and December 20, 2005 (167 days); and
o between January 7, 2006 and May 3, 2006 (117 days).
However, the Attorney General correctly points out that two of these dates overlap with days Arasheben spent in jail, and the court gave Arasheben custody credits for jail time for July 7, 2005 and May 3, 2006. Thus, combining the dates from July 8 through December 20, 2005 (166 days) and January 7 through May 2, 2006 (116 days), Arasheben was entitled to an additional 282 days of custody credit, for a total of 1, 021 actual plus custody credits (493+246+282).[6]
IV. Correction of Abstract Judgment
As the Attorney General points out, count 2 of the August 18, 2004 information charged Arasheben with a violation of section 484f, subdivision (b) forgery by the unlawful use of a credit card and this is the charge to which Arasheben pled no contest. However, subsequent minute orders and the abstract of judgment erroneously identify count 2 as section 484e, subdivision (d) possession of access card information with the intent to use it fraudulently. The abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect that count 2 was a charge under section 484f, subdivision (b).
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect a total of 1, 021 days of presentence credit. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. The court shall amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the modified presentence credit, and to conform to defendants plea under count 2, which was a charge under section 484f, subdivision (b), and shall forward copies to the Department of Corrections.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BIGELOW, J.
We concur:
RUBIN, Acting P. J.
FLIER, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
[2] Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for the same act or omission.
[3] Though Arasheben does not cite to or rely upon People v. Harris (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1223 (Harris), we note that it is a similar though distinguishable case. In Harris, a case decided before Salazar and Arnold, the trial court accepted the defendants argument that he did not intelligently or knowingly waive past credits. The trial court there, however, raised the waiver of credits for the first time at sentencing and the defendant was not advised on the record of the consequence of waiver or the number of days involved. (Id. at p. 1227.) As explained above, the waiver of credits was raised here several times before the trial court entered Arashebens waiver on the record. The totality of the circumstances indicates that her waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, even though it was communicated on the record through counsel alone.
[4] While Arasheben further argues that Black II is wrongly decided and permits an unconstitutional sentence, she concedes that this court is bound by California Supreme Court decisions.
[5] The trial court mistakenly calculated this period as 369 days, rather than 370, apparently omitting the last day.
[6] Arasheben was not entitled to conduct credits based on time served in the residential treatment facility. (People v. Palazuelos (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 962, 964-965. |
|
|
|
TERESA VIOLET ARASHABEN, A CONVICTED FELON, CON ARTIST AND CRIMINAL HAS BEEN STALKING SEVERAL INNOCE
PERSONAL MALICIOUS ATTACKS AND VICTIMIZING INNOCENT PEOPLE
15th of Jun, 2012 by alex p
TERESA VIOLET ARASHEBEN, WHO IS A CONVICTED FELON, CRIMINAL, FRAUD AND STALKER HAS BEEN ON A SMEAR CAMPAIGN, CREATING VICIOUS LIES WITH MALICIOUS INTENT TO HARM A GROUP OF PEOPLE SHE ONCE WORKED WITH AT A COMPANY CALLED MAXIMUM HEALTH. THESE ARE ALL PEOPLE SHE ONCE WORKED WITH AT THAT COMPANY IT ALL STARTED WITH A CO-WORKER AT THE COMPANY, THAT SHE WAS SEVERELY JEALOUS OF, AS WELL AS VERY COMPETITIVE WITH, IN SALES AND WHENEVER THAT CO-WORKER WOULD DO BETTER THAN SHE DID, (WHICH WAS A LOT), SHE WOULD DO VERY VICIOUS THINGS TO THAT CO-WORKER. SHE STARTED GOING INTO THE BIN AND CALLING THE CO-WORKERS CLIENTS, SO THAT THE CLIENTS WOULD CANCEL THEIR ORDERS. SHE MADE UP VICIOUS LIES SAYING THAT IT WAS A SCAM COMPANY AND THAT THE PERSON THAT SOLD THEM THE PRODUCT WAS FRAUDULENT. SHE ALSO TOLD THOSE CUSTOMERS TO CANCEL THEIR CREDIT CARDS BECAUSE THEIR CARDS HAD BEEN COMPROMISED. ON ANOTHER OCCASION, SHE VANDALIZED THE CO-WORKERS CAR, THROWING FOOD ALL OVER IT AND KEYING THE PANELS UP AND DOWN ONE SIDE OF THE CO-WORKERS MERCEDES BENZ. ONLY JEALOUSY COULD MAKE A PERSON DO THAT. SHE VICIOUSLY ATTACKED THE CO-WORKER CONSTANTLY, (EVEN THOUGH THE CO-WORKER IS BEAUTIFUL), ON HER LOOKS AND AGE. THE FUNNIEST THING IS THAT TERESA IS WITHIN 2 YEARS OF THE SAME AGE AND WE ALL AGREE, SHE, (TERESA) LOOKS A HELL OF A LOT OLDER THEN THE ONE SHE'S BEEN CRITICIZING, (AND TRYING TO COMPETE WITH). THERE'S NO COMPETITION. ALL OF US AGREE, THE CO-WORKER SHE WAS SO VEHEMENTLY JEALOUS OF IS FAR MORE BEAUTIFUL IN EVERY WAY THEN SHE IS. SHE JUST SIMPLY COULDN'T HANDLE THAT. NEXT, AFTER SHE HAD SCREAMING MATCHES WITH SEVERAL OF THE OTHER CO-WORKERS, AND SNATCHED A MONEY BONUS OUT OF ONE OF THE SUPERVISORS HANDS TEARING THE MONEY UP ALL OVER THE FLOOR. AS WELL AS STALKING THE ONE SHE WAS SO JEALOUS OF, TAKING PICTURES OF HER IN THE OFFICE, KICKING HER CHAIR, THREATENING HER, AND TAKING PICTURES OF HER CAR AND LICENSE PLATE, STEALING HER ORDERS RIGHT OFF THAT CO-WORKERS DESK AND CALLING THOSE CLIENTS WHEN THE CO-WORKER WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF A SALE, AND EVEN FILING A FALSE POLICE REPORT AGAINST THE CO-WORKER CLAIMING THAT SHE'D BEEN SLAPPED IN THE FACE BY HER, BRINGING THE POLICE TO THE OFFICE HOPING THEY WOULD ARREST THAT CO-WORKER... THE END RESULT OF ALL OF THAT WAS THE OTHER CO-WORKERS IN THE OFFICE KNEW IT WASN'T TRUE BECAUSE THE CO-WORKER HADN'T EVEN BEEN IN THE OFFICE THAT DAY UNTIL VERY LATE! THE CO-WORKER WAS THEN WARNED TO FILE A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST TERESA, (THESE WERE THE VERY SAME OFFICERS THAT TERESA WAS HOPING WOULD HALL HER AWAY, BUT INSTEAD THEY WERE WARNING HER). THAT LED TO THE COMPANY DECIDING THAT TERESA NEEDED TO BE SUSPENDED. AT THAT POINT, THE COMPANY DID SOME INVESTIGATING ON HER AND FOUJD OUT SOMETHING THAT TERESA WAS TRYING TO HIDE. (YOU SEE TERESA DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE THE COMPANY HER DRIVERS LICENSE, LIKE MOST EMPLOYERS REQUEST, BECAUSE SHE KNEW WHAT THE COMPANY WOULD FIND OUT). WE FOUND OUT SHE WAS A CONVICTED FELON, WITH A CRIMINAL RECORD GOING BACK AS FAR AS THE EARLY 80'S, WITH CHARGES THAT INCLUDED, BURGLARY, FORGERY BY USE OF CREDIT CARD, IDENTITY THEFT, GRAND THEFT. VANDALISM, (HENCE THE CO-WORKERS CAR), AND EVEN A 2 YEAR TERM IN CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON FOR SOLICITATION TO COMMIT MURDER!! NOT TO MENTION SEVERAL YEARS IN A PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT FACILITY, THAT HAS OBVIOUSLY DONE HER NO GOOD. THE COMPANY MADE A DECISION NOT TO BRING TERESA BACK AND INFORMED HER OF THAT. TERESA BEGGED FOR HER JOB BACK BUT THE COMPANY SAID NO. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE COMPANY STARTED GETTING CALLS FROM MANY OF THE CLIENTS THAT TERESA SOLD SAYING THAT THEY NEVER ORDERED THOSE PRODUCTS. WE FOUND OUT LATER THAT TERESA WAS NOT ONLY "ADDING ON" TO THE ORDERS THAT SHE GOT, . (PROBABLY TO COMPETE WITH THE CO-WORKER SHE WAS SO JEALOUS OF), BUT SHE WAS ALSO USING THOSE CREDIT CARDS TO CHARGE MANY ITEMS FOR HERSELF ONLINE AND PAY BILLS. SOME OF THOSE CARDS WERE USED IN OTHER STATES, SO WE BELIEVE SHE WAS ALSO SELLING THOSE NUMBERS. ONCE A CRIMINAL, ALWAYS A CRIMINAL. WE ALSO FOUND OUT SHE WAS CALLING THE CLIENTS FROM HER HOME, STILL PRETENDING TO BE WITH THE COMPANY AND HAVING THEM CANCEL THEIR ORDERS. SHE ALSO THEN TOLD THEM, SHE COULD GET THEM THE SAME PRODUCTS AT A LOWER PRICE IF THEY CANCELLED AND DID WHAT'S CALLED A "CHARGE BACK". THIS WENT ON FOR SOME TIME, UNTIL THE COMPANY FOUND OUT WHERE SHE WAS. IT TURNS OUT SHE WENT TO ANOTHER UNSUSPECTING COMPANY AND THE OWNER THERE, JUST HAPPENED TO BE FRIENDS WITH THE COMPANY SHE'D JUST BEEN FIRED FROM. SO, BEING THAT SHE WAS HOLDING ONTO COMPANY PROPERTY IN THE FORM OF CREDIT CARD NUMBERS, (WHICH SHE WAS TOLD REPEATEDLY SHE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE), SHE WAS ARRESTED BY THE POLICE AND ALL CREDIT CARD NUMBERS AND LEADS WERE CONFISCATED FROM HER. SHE ENDED UP DOING 6 MONTHS IN JAIL AND IN THAT INTERIM OF TIME, ALL THE CO-WORKERS AND THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY ALL HAD TO TESTIFY IN A COURT HEARING AGAINST HER. ALL THE CLIENTS OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH SHE STOLE CREDIT CARD NUMBERS FROM, HAD ALSO FILED MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS AND REPORTS AGAINST HER. BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER SHE GOT OUT OF PRISON, SHE TRIED TO FILE A WORKERS COMP. SUIT AGAINST THE COMPANY SAYING SHE HAD BEEN INJURED ON THE JOB. THERE ARE NO LENGTHS SHE WILL NOT GO TO GET REVENGE.. OF COURSE, THAT GOT THROWN OUT, BECAUSE IT WAS A COMPLETE FARCE. AFTER THAT, SHE WENT ON A SMEAR CAMPAIGN ON THE INTERNET AGAINST EVERYONE AND HAS BEEN HARASSING ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO TRUTH TO ANY OF THESE FASLE REPORTS, SO YOU CAN JUST DISREGARD THEM ALL INCLUDING ANYTHING NEW SHE TRIES TO POST. SHE HAS NO WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION, ONLY LIES!! WE HAVE ALL THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION, AS YOU CAN SEE. BUT WE WILL SAY THAT IT'S VERY FUNNY TO US HOW SHE ACCUSES EVERYONE OF BEING A CHILD MOLESTER. SHE IS OBVIOUSLY VERY OBSESSED WITH CHILD MOLESTATION. SHE HAS ALSO FILED REPORTS CLAIMING WHAT A WONDERFUL PERSON SHE IS, YOU WILL SEE EVERYTHING, INCLUDING ALL THE COMMENTS SHE MAKES, USING THE SAME USER NAMES AS MENTIONED ABOVE. SHE WILL ALSO CLAIM SHE'S THE ONE BEING STALKED BY EVERYONE IN THE COMPANY, (WHICH IS VERY FUNNY AND SAD TO US)., BUT AS YOU WILL SEE THE DATES IN WHICH HER POSTS WERE MADE, THEY ALL CAME FAR BEFORE ANYTHING WE EVER POSTED IN OUR DEFENSE. WE'VE JUST HAD ENOUGH OF THIS SICK TWISTED INDIVIDUAL NO ONE HERE WANTS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HER AND WOULD LIKE HER TO GO AWAY, SO WE CAN ALL GET ON WITH OUR LIVES. THIS WILL STOP WHEN SHE STOPS. BELOW, YOU WILL FIND LINKS TO EVERY STORY SHE'S WRITTEN ABOUT EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE CO-WORKERS AND EVEN THE ATTORNEY INVOLVED IN THE CASE. YOU WILL SEE THAT NO MATTER HOW MANY USER NAMES SHE USES, THE STORIES AND SLANDER ARE ALWAYS THE SAME. SHE IS A PSYCHOPATH ON A RANT!! YOU WILL ALSO FIND SOME COURT DOCUMENTS THAT WILL SHOW YOU EXACTLY WHO THIS PERSON REALLY IS.
THESE ARE ALL THE LINKS TO THE VICIOUS LIES SHES BEEN MAKING UP TO GET REVENGE AND HARASS EVERYONE:
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/maximum-health-maximum-health-inc-deadly-products-c39732.html
http://www.ripoffreport.com/blabber-mouth/natasha-leann-thomps/natasha-leann-thompson-natasha-4feb1.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/child-protective-services/natasha-leann-thomps/natasha-leann-thompson-natash-2FA13.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/child-protective-services/natasha-leann-thomps/natasha-leann-thompson-natash-2fa13.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/attorneys-legal-services/law-office-of-salar/law-office-of-salar-atrizadeh-3513e.htm
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/attorney-salar-atrizadeh-attorney-salar-atrizadeh-is-a-dangerous-scam-artist-and-c78992.html
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/christine-nasalski-independent-public-relations-and-communications-a-fraud-c47547.html
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/maximum-health-the-biggeast-scam-company-and-owner-natasha-thompson-c47524.html
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/christine-nasalski-christine-nasalski-aging-prostitute-c74378.html
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/natasha-thompson-scam-artist-a-black-fraud-queen-c47549.html
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/maximum-health-maximum-health-inc-natasha-thompson-identity-theft-and-c47585.html
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/natasha-thompson-fat-black-child-molester-natasha-thompson-owner-of-scam-company-maximum-health-c47819.html
health-c47819.html
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/natasha-thompson-a-vile-criminal-c75244.html
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/natasha-thompson-owner-of-company-maximum-health-harmful-suppplements-and-other-deadly-products-c75252.html
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/christine-nasalski-a-whore-and-an-aging-wannabe-christine-nasalski-is-a-cheap-rent-a-whore-who-committed-c76081.html
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/kristine-nasalski-kristine-nasalski-is-a-vicious-child-molesterer-c76092.html
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/natasha-leann-thompson-is-a-child-molesterer-natasha-leann-thompson-is-a-dangerous-monster-c76108.html
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/attorney-salar-atrizadeh-attorney-salar-atrizadeh-is-a-dangerous-scam-artist-and-c78537.html
http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/attorney-salar-atrizadeh-attorney-salar-atrizadeh-is-a-dangerous-scam-artist-and-c78992.html
COURT DOCUMENTS ON TERESA VIOLET ARASHEBEN
P. v. Arasheben
P. v. Arasheben
Filed 9/23/08 P. v. Arasheben
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TERESA VILET ARASHEBEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
B199554
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. SA053271)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elden S. Fox and Lisa B. Lench, Judges. Affirmed as modified with directions.
William J. Capriola, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Peggy Z. Huang, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After Teresa Vilet Arasheben violated the terms and conditions of her probation, the trial court revoked probation and imposed a previously suspended sentence of seven years and four months. Arasheben contends on appeal that: (1) the trial court did not secure a knowing, express, or intelligent waiver of her right to accrued custody credits; (2) the trial court incorrectly calculated the custody credits she did receive, denying her two days of conduct credit; and (3) under Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 (Cunningham), the trial courts imposition of an upper term sentence violated her Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We affirm the judgment, with directions on remand as to Arashebens custody credits.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Teresa Arasheben was charged with four counts of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459; counts 1, 4, 7, and 10);[1]one count of forgery by use of a credit card ( 484f, subd. (b); count 2); two counts of petty theft with a prior ( 666; counts 3 and 12); one count of grand theft of personal property ( 487, subd. (a); count 5); three counts of theft of an access card ( 484e, subd. (d); counts 6, 9 and 11); and one count of attempted grand theft of personal property ( 664/487, subd. (a); count 8). It was further alleged appellant served five prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), and that she suffered one prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
The charges stemmed from two occasions where Arasheben went into spas for facials, was left alone in the treatment room, and stole the credit cards from the wallets of the women working in the salon. Arasheben later used the credit cards to purchase gift certificates.
On January 6, 2005, Arasheben pleaded no contest to four counts of second degree burglary ( 459, counts 1, 4, 7, & 10); one count of forgery by the unlawful use of a credit card ( 484(f), subd. (b); count 2); and one count of petty theft with a prior ( 664/484, subd. (a), 666)). Arasheben also admitted one prior conviction for which she was sentenced to state prison ( 667.5). In exchange, the trial court stated Arasheben would be placed on probation for five years, and that it would impose and suspend execution of a seven year four month prison sentence. Arasheben was to be released to a residential treatment center on condition that she remain at that program for a period of not less than one year for purposes of counseling and addressing certain psychiatric issues in regard to [her] recidivism. The court further advised that it would grant a Romero motion as to a prior serious felony to permit Arasheben to receive probation and regular time credits. The People agreed to dismiss the counts for which the court could not impose any additional time under the law given the constraints of section 654.[2]
The trial court did, in fact, impose and suspend execution of an aggregate term of seven years and four months in the state prison, comprised of: the high term of three years on count 1, based on the prior history in this matter and also the fact the defendant was on parole at the time of the current offense. . . ; one-third of the mid-term of eight months for each of counts 2, 4, 7, 10 and 12; and a one-year enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b). Arasheben was placed on five years formal probation, during which time she was to participate in a 12-month residential program that would include psychiatric and psychological counseling. Arasheben was not to leave the program without court or probation department permission.
On February 15, 2005, Arasheben left the residential program without permission, thereby violating her probation. Probation was summarily revoked on February 17, 2005. On April 25, 2005, the trial court held a probation violation hearing. At the hearing, Arasheben pleaded with the court for a chance to continue in the residential treatment program. After hearing from Arasheben and her counsel, the trial court, Arashebens counsel, and Arasheben had the following exchange:
The Court: Im not going to release her today. If she wants to waive her back time credits, I will reset this for July the 7th, which is the date she was supposed to come back here, and then I will agree to release her to [the residential treatment facility], but Im not going to release her before that. []
Ms. Leeds [Arashebens counsel]: Thank you very much, your Honor.
The Court: Okay. Does she want to come back here on July 7th and waive her back time credits in this matter?
Ms. Leeds: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
The Court: Ms. Arasheben, I want you to listen to me. I get any reports from the county jail that there are problems there, and Im going to advance the matter, bring you back here, and I may change my mind. [] If you comply with your regimen and you behave yourself, on July 7th Im going to release you back to [the treatment center] to complete a 12-month program. [] And you may feel that by doing that Im delaying somewhat your rehabilitation. But I will tell you, youre this close to going off to the Department of Corrections again. Do you understand that? [] I dont want any complaints. I dont want any crying. I dont want any pleading or begging. You agree to come back here on July 7th to go back to [the treatment center]?
The Defendant: Yes, sir.
Arasheben then inquired whether she could ask the court a question, and proceeded to request specific medical orders for herself.
On July 7, 2005, Arasheben returned to court with counsel for further proceedings. After confirming that the treatment center was willing to re-admit Arasheben, the court asked Arashebens counsel: Have you talked to your client . . . and shes amenable to going back to [the treatment center] and following through with the program as previously ordered by the court in lieu of going to state prison for six years? Arashebens counsel answered yes. The court then asked if Arasheben was going to admit the probation violation, and Arasheben answered yes. The court reinstated probation and stated on the record:
Pursuant to 4019 of the Penal Code and 2900.5 of the Penal Code, Ms. Arasheben does waive her previous time credits both actual and good time/work time. She is ordered to serve 158 days in the county jail. She will get credit for 106 actual days plus 52 good time/work time for a total of 158 days. Neither Arasheben nor her counsel made any objection to the courts statement that Arasheben was waiving her previous time credits.
In May 2006, Arashebens probation was again summarily revoked after she was arrested for petty theft. On February 23, 2007, following a probation hearing, the trial court found that Arasheben had violated the terms and conditions of her probation. On May 7, 2007, the trial court executed the previously suspended sentence of seven years and four months. The court awarded 1, 020 days of credit against the sentence. The same day, Arasheben filed a pro per motion to recall the sentence, arguing that the court had not awarded her credit for previous time in custody and [a]t absolutely no time did [she] waive any time credits. Perhaps in July 2005 Judge Fox ordered time in program to start over. But no time credits were waived. On May 25, 2007, the court denied the motion. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. Arashebens Johnson Waiver was Valid
Arasheben contends that she did not waive her past custody or conduct credits. We reject this argument.
A defendant is entitled to credit against a term of imprisonment for days spent in custody before sentencing, as well as days spent in custody after sentencing as a condition of probation. (Pen. Code, 2900.5; People v. Johnson (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1050, 1053 (Johnson).) However, a defendant may also expressly waive such credits against an ultimate prison sentence (commonly known as a Johnson waiver), and trial courts have the authority to condition probation upon a waiver of credits for time in custody. (Johnson, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 1055.) A defendants waiver of custody credits must be knowing and intelligent, which means that the defendant must understand she is giving up custody credits to which she would otherwise be entitled. (Ibid; People v. Arnold (2004) 33 Cal.4th 294, 308 (Arnold); People v. Hilger (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1528, 1532.)
The record reflects that at the April 25, 2005 probation violation hearing, Arashebens counsel expressly advised the court that Arasheben agreed to waive her past custody credits as a condition of the courts agreement to reinstate probation. Accordingly, at the next hearing on July 7, 2005, the court entered an order indicating that Arasheben waived her previous credits. However, Arasheben argues that a Johnson waiver must be personal and express, and, because the trial court neither engaged in a specific dialogue with her directly about waiving the past credits, nor secured her direct statement waiving her custody credits, there was no valid waiver.
Arasheben offers no legal authority for her argument that her counsels statements were not an effective waiver and case law provides otherwise. Counsel may waive all but a few fundamental rights for a defendant. [Citation.]. . . . Included in that narrow exception are such fundamental matters as whether to plead guilty, whether to waive the constitutional right to trial by jury, whether to waive the right to counsel, and whether to waive the privilege against self-incrimination. [Citation.] As to these rights, the criminal defendant must be admonished and the court must secure an express waiver; as to other fundamental rights of a less personal nature, courts may assume that counsels waiver reflects the defendants consent in the absence of an express conflict. [Citation.] (People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 873-874.) Arasheben offers no argument to support her apparent assumption that the entitlement to time creditsa statutory rather than constitutional rightis a fundamental matter that cannot be waived through counsel when the defendant is present in the courtroom and understands the proceedings.
Moreover, there is no evidence that Arashebens counsel was acting alone, or against Arashebens wishes. When determining whether a Johnson waiver was knowing and intelligent we look to the totality of [the] circumstances. (People v. Salazar (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1554, fn. 1 (Salazar).) Here, the record as a whole indicates that Arasheben voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived her past custody credits in exchange for the reinstatement of probation. At the April 25, 2005, hearing, Arasheben and her counsel pleaded with the court for compassion and leniency so that the court might reinstate probation rather than imposing Arashebens suspended sentence. Arasheben was present when the trial court indicated that it would reinstate probation if Arasheben was willing to waive past credits. The trial court raised this issue twice, and when the court asked Arashebens counsel directly if Arasheben would waive her past credits, her counsel answered yes. Arasheben said nothing, even though she had freely spoken during the proceedings, and indeed interrupted later to ask the court a question directly. (Salazar, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1554-1556 [court found defendants Johnson waiver knowing and intelligent where, on more than one occasion, neither defendant nor counsel objected to courts description of the scope of the Johnson waiver].)
Over two months passed, and at the next hearing, when the trial court asked counsel if Arasheben was willing to proceed with the plan set forth by the court at the previous hearing, counsel answered yes, and Arasheben said nothing. The trial court stated on the record that Arasheben was waiving her past credits, and neither Arasheben nor her counsel objected to question or correct the courts statement. Throughout the proceedings at issue in this case, Arasheben felt free to speak directly to the court to ask questions and challenge her counsel. That she did not do so in any of the instances in which the court discussed her waiver of credits indicates she understood and agreed with the waiver her counsel had communicated.
Although the better practice is for sentencing courts to expressly admonish defendants who waive custody creditsunder Johnson about the scope and effect of such a waiver, the failure to include such an explicit advisement will not, however, invalidate a Johnson waiver by which the defendant is otherwise found to have knowingly and intelligently relinquished his or her right to custody credits under section 2900.5. (Arnold, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 309.) Under the totality of the circumstances we conclude that Arashebens Johnson waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.[3]
II. Imposition of the High Term Did Not Violate Arashebens
Constitutional Rights
In 2005, the trial court imposed and stayed a sentence of seven years four months, which included a three-year upper term on one count of second degree burglary. The court imposed the upper term based on the prior history in the matter and because Arasheben was on parole at the time of the current offense. Arasheben contends that under Cunningham, the trial court relied on improper factors to impose the upper term and thereby violated her Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a jury determination by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
While we agree with the Attorney General that appellate review of this issue is impermissible because Arasheben failed to secure a certificate of probable cause (see People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79), we note also that under People v. Towne (2008) 44 Cal.4th 63 (Towne), and People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799 (Black II), we must reject Arashebens arguments. In Black II, our Supreme Court held that if a single aggravating factor has been established by the jurys verdict, the defendants admissions, or the fact of a prior conviction, the trial courts imposition of the upper term does not violate a defendants right to a jury trial, even if the trial court considered other aggravating circumstances in deciding to impose the upper term. (Black II, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 813.) In Towne, our Supreme Court expressly held that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt on aggravating circumstances does not extend to the circumstance that a defendant was on probation or parole at the time of the offense or has served a prior prison term. (Towne, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 79.)
Here, the trial courts decision to impose the high term on count 1 was based in part on the aggravating factor that Arasheben was on parole when she committed the offense in question, and in part on her prior criminal history.These facts were supported by the record and are not impermissible judicial fact finding. (Black II, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 818-820; People v. Yim (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 366, 370-371; People v. Thomas (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 212, 220-223.) As a result, the trial court did not violate Arashebens constitutional rights by imposing the upper term on count 1.[4]
III. Arasheben is Entitled to One Additional Day of Conduct Credit
Arasheben contends that the trial court erred in calculating the conduct credits she had not waived, and was ultimately awarded. The Attorney General agrees that the trial court erred in its calculations, but the parties modified calculations differ by one day. We conclude that the trial court did err, and Arasheben should have received one additional day of conduct credit.
Under Section 4019, a defendant receives two days of good conduct or work credit (conduct credit) for each four-day block of time served. (In re Marquez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 14, 25.) The trial court should combine all days of actual custody before calculating conduct credits. (People v. Culp (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1284.) Then, [t]he proper method of calculating presentence custody credits is to divide by four the number of actual presentence days in custody, discounting any remainder. That whole-number quotient is then multiplied by two to arrive at the number of good/work credits. Those credits are then added to the number of actual presentence days spent in custody, to arrive at the total number of presentence custody credits. (Id. at p. 1283.)
Here, the trial court found:
Arasheben served the following actual days in jail, for which she is entitled to conduct credit:
o between March 24, 2005 and July 7, 2005 (106 days);
o between December 20, 2005 and January 6, 2006 (17 days, not including December 20, which the court included as a day served in the residential facility); and
o between May 3, 2006 and May 7, 2007 (370 days);[5]
This totaled 493 days of custody credits. However, the trial court calculated Arashebens conduct credits based on each separate block of dates, rather than the aggregate number of days in custody. When calculated together, Arasheben should have received a total of 246 conduct credits. (106+17+370 = 493; divided by 4 = 123.25; discounting the remainder = 123; multiplied by 2 = 246.)
The trial court also found that Arasheben served actual days in the residential treatment facility, for which she is not entitled to conduct credit (See People v. Moore (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 783.):
o between July 7, 2005 and December 20, 2005 (167 days); and
o between January 7, 2006 and May 3, 2006 (117 days).
However, the Attorney General correctly points out that two of these dates overlap with days Arasheben spent in jail, and the court gave Arasheben custody credits for jail time for July 7, 2005 and May 3, 2006. Thus, combining the dates from July 8 through December 20, 2005 (166 days) and January 7 through May 2, 2006 (116 days), Arasheben was entitled to an additional 282 days of custody credit, for a total of 1, 021 actual plus custody credits (493+246+282).[6]
IV. Correction of Abstract Judgment
As the Attorney General points out, count 2 of the August 18, 2004 information charged Arasheben with a violation of section 484f, subdivision (b) forgery by the unlawful use of a credit card and this is the charge to which Arasheben pled no contest. However, subsequent minute orders and the abstract of judgment erroneously identify count 2 as section 484e, subdivision (d) possession of access card information with the intent to use it fraudulently. The abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect that count 2 was a charge under section 484f, subdivision (b).
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect a total of 1, 021 days of presentence credit. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. The court shall amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the modified presentence credit, and to conform to defendants plea under count 2, which was a charge under section 484f, subdivision (b), and shall forward copies to the Department of Corrections.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BIGELOW, J.
We concur:
RUBIN, Acting P. J.
FLIER, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
[2] Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for the same act or omission.
[3] Though Arasheben does not cite to or rely upon People v. Harris (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1223 (Harris), we note that it is a similar though distinguishable case. In Harris, a case decided before Salazar and Arnold, the trial court accepted the defendants argument that he did not intelligently or knowingly waive past credits. The trial court there, however, raised the waiver of credits for the first time at sentencing and the defendant was not advised on the record of the consequence of waiver or the number of days involved. (Id. at p. 1227.) As explained above, the waiver of credits was raised here several times before the trial court entered Arashebens waiver on the record. The totality of the circumstances indicates that her waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, even though it was communicated on the record through counsel alone.
[4] While Arasheben further argues that Black II is wrongly decided and permits an unconstitutional sentence, she concedes that this court is bound by California Supreme Court decisions.
[5] The trial court mistakenly calculated this period as 369 days, rather than 370, apparently omitting the last day.
[6] Arasheben was not entitled to conduct credits based on time served in the residential treatment facility. (People v. Palazuelos (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 962, 964-965.)
Track this Report 7 Comments | Post a Comment
Comments
5 hours 47 minutes ago by Deborahwatson65
This is so sad. Is she African American? Can you please post her photo? I can see that she has published private information such as phone numbers and addresses of her African co-worker. What is your company's name? Write it so people know you were her victim. I was a victim too of a convicted felon who also used the internet to libel me. This is why I started to support Obama's proposal to curb internet freedom as internet is becoming place number 1 for criminals!
5 hours 38 minutes ago by Apehunter
Natasha Leann Thompson, of Los Angeles, California, a black 27-year old, manipulative female is the coward whom has been posting all these sick lies about Miss Arasheben.
Miss Arasheben does not even have "four children."Natasha Leann Thompson is a common name, but the Natasha Thompson in question here is specifically Natasha Leann Thompson of Los Angeles, California with birth date of: 08-10-1982
California Driver's License number: B8740124
Residential address of: 3701 Overland Avenue---apartment G262 Los Angeles, Ca. 90034
Race: Black
Build: fat
Height: approximately 5'6.
This Natasha Leann Thompson is a verified child molesterer and extremely dangerous manipulator, thief, liar, crook, and criminal. YOU MUST BE AWARE OF THIS HAZARDOUS individual. In year 2010 she worked for and scammed a company called Telezone. After Telezone fired and banned her from the premises(for harassment, threats, vandalism, assault to several employees---although they did not press charges because they desperately just wanted to get rid of her), she started her own shady home business with stolen clients from Telezone.
She hired several felons and then hired a very nice, hard-workimg woman whom she took horrible advantage of and worked very hard and then decided not to pay her. When the woman left, this monster, Natasha Leann Thompson took advantage of the woman's past record by going to the cops and filling out false police reports gainst her and having her arrested on false charges. Natasha Thompson then began stalking the woman and her family.
This is the woman whom she posted the original and very false "report" about, on this site.
Natasha Leann Thompson has no life and no future and so she spends her days and nights filing false "reports" about this woman in order to intimidate her and extort money from her. She has done this to numerous other people, in the past, and has gotten away with it(just as she's gotten away with molesting and doing harm to children).
However, this woman refuses to be intimidated by this sleazey ghetto-rat called Natasha Thompson.
At any rate, in 2011:
The woman obtained a legally binding restraining order against Natasha Thompson in Santa Monica Superior Court. It is a matter of record.Hoever, Natasha Thompson has violated court orders and continues to stalk this poor woman.
Natasha Thompson has also been a "foster parent" to several children whom she has molested, raped, and done terrible emotional and physical damage to. The only reason she got away with it is because she scared the children and threatened then against testifying.
What's even worse is that she used a man's sperm, that she stole---by taking it out of the condom and using a turkey baster to insemminate herself, to become pregnant and then collect welfare.
So your tax dollars are paying for this child molesterer to live high on the hog.
All of her information is listed, including her home address.
Feel free to visit her.
You can also give her a call--or ten--at her cell phone:
(310)425-6397
and
(310)425-6376.
Natasha Leann Thompson is the coward and ghetto rat whom has been hiding behind 10's of 1000's of fake usernames to go online and post false, slanderous lies about Miss Arasheben, because Thompson is a disgruntles former employer and a forever scam queen and welfare dog.
Here's a little about Natasha Thompson:
5 hours 33 minutes ago by Apehunter
Those are completely false, slanderous lies posted by Natasha Thompson, a fat, black, 27-year old, manipulative female who lives in Los AngelesNatasha Leann Thompson is a common name, but the Natasha Thompson in question here is specifically Natasha Leann Thompson of Los Angeles, California with birth date of: 08-10-1982
California Driver's License number: B8740124
Residential address of: 3701 Overland Avenue---apartment G262 Los Angeles, Ca. 90034
Race: Black
Build: fat
Height: approximately 5'6.
This Natasha Leann Thompson is a verified child molesterer and extremely dangerous manipulator, thief, liar, crook, and criminal. YOU MUST BE AWARE OF THIS HAZARDOUS individual. In year 2010 she worked for and scammed a company called Telezone. After Telezone fired and banned her from the premises(for harassment, threats, vandalism, assault to several employees---although they did not press charges because they desperately just wanted to get rid of her), she started her own shady home business with stolen clients from Telezone.
She hired several felons and then hired a very nice, hard-workimg woman whom she took horrible advantage of and worked very hard and then decided not to pay her. When the woman left, this monster, Natasha Leann Thompson took advantage of the woman's past record by going to the cops and filling out false police reports gainst her and having her arrested on false charges. Natasha Thompson then began stalking the woman and her family.
This is the woman whom she posted the original and very false "report" about, on this site.
Natasha Leann Thompson has no life and no future and so she spends her days and nights filing false "reports" about this woman in order to intimidate her and extort money from her. She has done this to numerous other people, in the past, and has gotten away with it(just as she's gotten away with molesting and doing harm to children).
However, this woman refuses to be intimidated by this sleazey ghetto-rat called Natasha Thompson.
At any rate, in 2011:
The woman obtained a legally binding restraining order against Natasha Thompson in Santa Monica Superior Court. It is a matter of record.Hoever, Natasha Thompson has violated court orders and continues to stalk this poor woman.
Natasha Thompson has also been a "foster parent" to several children whom she has molested, raped, and done terrible emotional and physical damage to. The only reason she got away with it is because she scared the children and threatened then against testifying.
What's even worse is that she used a man's sperm, that she stole---by taking it out of the condom and using a turkey baster to insemminate herself, to become pregnant and then collect welfare.
So your tax dollars are paying for this child molesterer to live high on the hog.
All of her information is listed, including her home address.
Feel free to visit her.
You can also give her a call--or ten--at her cell phone:
(310)425-6397
and
(310)425-6376., California and scams and extorts unsuspecting people for money.
Here are some frightening facts about Natasha Thompson, a severly manipulative and dangerous con artist:
2 hours 17 minutes ago by Alex P
WE GUARANTEE EVERYONE READING THIS, EVERY WORD OF THIS IS COMPLETELY ACCURATE!! TERESA VIOLET ARASHEBEN IS NOW TRYING TO LIE YET AGAIN!!! GIVE IT UP, TERESA!! YOU DID ALL OF THIS AND MORE!!! WE DIDN'T EVEN POST EVERYTHING, BUT WE WILL IF YOU CONTINUE TO WRITE MALICIOUS STORIES ABOUT ANY ONE OF THESE PEOPLE AGAIN.. WE WILL POST ALL THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS OF YOUR RIDICULOUS FRAUDULEENT CLAIM IN WHICH WE HAD TO DEAL WITH ATTORNEYS ON FOR A FALSE WORKERS COMPENSATION REPORT THAT HAS YOUR NAME ALL OVER IT!!! YOU ARE EVIL!! WE HAVE EVERYTHING IN WRITING! YOU HAVE NOTHING EXCEPT YOUR EVIL WORDS!!
THANK YOU, DEBORAHWATSON66. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN THE WORLD!!
THE NAME OF THE COMPANY IS "MAXIMUM HEALTH".
2 hours 13 minutes ago by Alex P
YOU CAN ALL EVEN SEE IN HER REBUTTALS ABOVE, SHE IS STILL SAYING THE SAME UGLY THINGS ABOUT NATASHA, THAT SHE SAID IN ALL THE STORIES SHE POSTED ON THE INTERNET, (LINKS ABOVE TO EACH AND EVERY STORY). OF COURSE WE KNOW IT'S YOU, TERESA!! YOU CAN'T HIDE THE TRUTH ANYMORE!! THE CAT'S OUT OF THE BAG!! YOU HAVE BEEN STALKING EVERYONE AND THE DATES OF EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOUR STORIES CAME WAY BEFORE WE EVER POSTED ANYTHING ABOUT YOU!!! YOU ARE AN EVIL SICK INDIVIDUAL!! GET SOME HELP SO THE REST OF US CAN BE SAFE!
13 minutes ago by Alex P
AGAIN, HERE ARE ALL OF TERESA VIOLET ARASHEBENS SLANDEROUS STALKER STORIES AND SMEAR CAMPAIGNS ABOUT EVERYONE SHE'S BEEN TRYING TO GET REVENGE ON!! NOTICE THE USER NAMES ON EACH STORY. THEY ARE ALL HER ACCOUNTS AND IF YOU SEE THE STORIES POSTED UNDER THE USER NAME OF "APEHUNTER", YOU WILL SEE ABOVE, SHE USED THAT EXACT SAME ACCOUNT TO REBUTT THE ABOVE (AND VERY TRUE) ALLEGATIONS ABOUT HERSELF. NOT TO MENTION THE POSTS SHE WRITES GLOWING THINGS ABOUT HERSELF. THEY'RE ALL UNDER THE SAME USER NAMES, OF RED l, BLACKWING, APEHUNTER, WETHEPEOPLE, ETC... HOW'S THAT FOR SLOPPINESS?!...LOL! COULD SHE BE ANY DUMBER??!!...
1st of Jul, 2011 by User397273
Maximum Health - Maximum Health, inc. Deadly Products?
crooks by the names of NATASHA THOMPSON and STEPHANIE LOGBICHO. They hire telemarketers, as independent contractors and give them " bonuses" to make outbound calls( to call consumers who have previously bought supplements from other companies), to pose as those previous supplement companies and pretend to be " doing a follow-up call to see how" they liked the supplement and TO TELL THEM BOLD LIES AND SELL THEM PLACEBO PILLS< which they allege are the same "quality supplements...
7th of Sep, 2011 by blackwing
Christine Nasalski----Independent Public Relations and Communications - A Fraud
and company owner: Natasha Thompson, that she formerly worked for: This company: Originally based in Culver City, California, also has another address: 3520 Overland Avenue Space A24 Los Angeles, California 90034. This company falsely poses as a "supplement" company...
7th of Sep, 2011 by blackwing
Maximum Health - The Biggeast Scam Company----and owner: Natasha Thompson
The owner is: Natasha Thompson Thompson's personal phone numbers are: (310) 425-6376 (310)425-6397 (310) 425-8571 Her Driver's liscence number is: B8740124 Her birth date is: 08/10/1982 Her height is: 5'6 Her ethnicity is: African-American...
7th of Sep, 2011 by blackwing
Christine Nasalski - Christine Nasalski--aging prostitute
and company owner: Natasha Thompson, that she formerly worked for: This company: Originally based in Culver City, California, also has another address: 3520 Overland Avenue Space A24 Los Angeles, California 90034. This company falsely poses as a "supplement" company...
7th of Sep, 2011 by blackwing
Natasha Thompson---scam artist - A black fraud queen
Natasha Thompson is the owner of the following company, where she has scammed many unsuspecting, unfortunate people: Originally based in Culver City, California, also has another address: This is her most updated/current business address: 3520 Overland Avenue Space A24 Los Angeles, California 90034...
7th of Sep, 2011 by apehunter
Natasha Thompson---Child Molester - Maximum Health---a scam company owner and fraud queen
Natasha Thompson is a menace to society. She has not only raped and damages a little girl, about 2 years ago, but she also operates a phony "supplement" company, where she thieves and victimizes people by making them her "customers", charging them outrages prices for phony vitamins, charging their credit cards, over the phone, and then NEVER sending them the products that they ordered...
5th of Sep, 2011 by User643237
Maximum Health - Maximum Health, Inc. Natasha Thompson Identity Theft and Fraud los angeles, California
The owner is: Natasha ThompsonThompson's personal phone numbers are: (310) 425-6376(310)425-6397(310) 425-8571Her Driver's liscence number is: B8740124Her birth date is: 08/10/1982Her height is: 5'6Her ethnicity is: African-American. She owns this company, and has been, along with the people she hires as telemarketers, stealing credit card numbers of innocent people and stealing money from people's accounts---and NEVER sending them ANY of the products they ordered...
8th of Sep, 2011 by blackwing
NATASHA THOMPSON---fat, black, child molester - NATASHA THOMPSON---owner of SCAM COMPANY: MAXIMUM HEALTH
NATASHA THOMPSON, WHO LIVES IN WEST LOS ANGELES. SHE IS A 26-YEAR OLD BLACK FEMALE AND A CHILD MOLESTER. SHE ALSO OWNS This company: Originally based in Culver City, California, also has another address: 3520 Overland Avenue Space A24 Los Angeles, California 90034...
6th of Feb, 2012 by ned l.
Natasha Thompson - a vile criminal
Natasha Thompson, a black female, under the age of 32, is THE most vile, vicious, trouble-making, dishonest, and rather STUPID human being alive. Beware that she resides in Los Angeles, California, in December 2011 gave birth to her first child( a loathsome waste of life and filthy little monkey, just like her ape mother)...
7th of Feb, 2012 by ned l.
natasha thompson----owner of company: Maximum Health - HARMFUL SUPPPLEMENTS AND OTHER DEADLY PRODUCTS
NATASHA THOMPSON IS THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF "MAXIMUM HEALTH, " A LOS ANGELES BASED COMPANY. BE AWARE THAT BOTH COMPANY AND OWNER ARE DANGEROUS AND SHOULD B TREATED AS SUCH. MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE ILLEGAL AND, MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, UNDERHANDED AND SNEAKY PRACTICES OF THIS MALICIOUS WOMAN AND THE PEOPLE----THE PUNKS----WHO ARE ON HER PAYROLL AND DO HER BIDDING...
23rd of Feb, 2012 by wolfwolf
Natasha Thompson--A black, female Los Angeles, California resident, is an Extreme MENACE to humans and society - A SEVERE DANGER to children and adults
Natasha Thompson was( and might still be) the registered owner of a failing telemarketing company: Maximum Health. Natasha Thompson has misused her business to make illegal charges to consumer's credit cards, defraud people, steal money and other assets( via wrongful credit card charges), and to cause severe harm to people working for her, when they have refused to do her bidding...
25th of Feb, 2012 by ned l.
Teresa Violet Arasheben---Upstanding citizen - Has contributed a lot to society---a truly fantastic person
Natasha Thompson tricked and lured her away from a very good firm that she'd been working for. Natasha Thompson knew about her record and so had plotted to take advantage of her and use her record to blackmail her, get a lot of haard work out of her, and then not pay her all of the monies she owed her for her work...
25th of Feb, 2012 by ned l.
Christine Nasalski---A whore and an aging wannabe - Christine Nasalski is a cheap rent-a-whore who committed fraud and did the bidding of Natasha Thompson
record against her, and Natasha Thompson, a vile liar and fraud queen, paid Nasalski to do her bidding. you can see why Christine Nasalski is a cheap rent-a-whore. Christine Nasalski has and will more than willingly sell herself and her tainted sole for anything and anyone. Christine Nasalski is a dirty, underhanded, jealuos, hateful cunt...
26th of Feb, 2012 by ned l.
kristine nasalski - Kristine Nasalski is a vicious child molesterer
of another monster: Natasha Thompson, a vile criminal and Los Angels, California resident just like Kristine Nasalski herself. In approximately 2010 through 2011 she worked for Natasha Thompson, the owner of a seedy and failing Los Angeles company by the name of Maximum health. The current address of that company is: 3701 Overland, #G262 in Los Angeles, California...
28th of Feb, 2012 by ned l.
Natasha Leann Thompson is a child molesterer - Natasha Leann Thompson is a dangerous monster
Natasha Thompson's home address is 3701 Overland, apartment G262, in Los Angeles, California, 90034. Her cell phone numbers are: (310)425-6397 (310) 425-6376 (310)425-8571 Her business phones are: (310)876-1408 (310)876-1409 (888)254-2664 Her date of birth is: 08-10-1982 Her car is and/or was a; pewter Mercedes Benz Her car's license plate is: 5CPB349...
5th of May, 2012 by apehunter
Attorney Salar Atrizadeh - Attorney Salar Atrizadeh is a dangerous scam artist and dishonest attorney
prostitute-client, Natasha Thompson. Meanwhile, Thompson had also lied to Atrizadeh, and refused to pay him the money that they had "agreed" on, at the onset of the case. What type of stupid attorney ---especially a greedy one like Atrizadeh---agrees to take a case and sign a contract on only the "promise" of payment? Thompson refused to pay him(s she had planned all along NOT to pay him)...
14th of Jun, 2012 by apehunter
Attorney Salar Atrizadeh - Attorney Salar Atrizadeh is a dangerous scam artist and dishonest attorney
A little about Natasha Thompson: Natasha Leann Thompson is a common name, but the Natasha Thompson in question here is specifically Natasha Leann Thompson of Los Angeles, California with birth date of: 08-10-1982 California Driver's License number: B8740124 Residential address of: 3701 Overland Avenue---apartment G262 Los Angeles, Ca...
0 minutes ago by Alex P
TERESA VIOLET ARASHEBEN HAS BEEN STALKING AND HARASSING A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS, WHILE POSTING "GLOWING" REVIEWS ABOUT HERSELF, USING THE EXACT SAME USERNAMES AS THE ABOVE SLANDEROUS STORIES AND EVEN REBUTTALS ABOVE. NO DOUBT THIS IS THE SAME SICK INDIVIDUAL. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT WHEN YOU COMPARE THE USER NAMES OF THESE REVIEWS AND THE USER NAMES OF THE MALICIOUS STORIES ABOVE. IT IS TERESA VIOLET ARASHEBEN HERSELF!! SORRY, TERESA! BUSTED IN MORE LIES, YET AGAIN!! IT'S ALL HERE IN BLACK AND WHITE!
7th of Sep, 2011 by User746494
Teresa Violet Arasheben - Teresa Violet Arasheben Teresa Arasheben is a seasoned career criminal. Los Angeles, California
Products Fires Teresa Violet Arasheben for numerous counts of credit card fraud, lieing to customers and more. Teresa Violet Arasheben is a true Career Criminal. She has defrauded dozens of consumers in numerous call center positions in her past and present. Teresa is evil and witty so be very careful for this estranged woman...
25th of Feb, 2012 by ned l.
Teresa Violet Arasheben---Upstanding citizen - Has contributed a lot to society
Teresa Violet Arasheben truly is an upstanding person and has done a lot make her life a success. Sure, she's had a past record. But these days, who hasn't? She's paid whatever she had to pay and came out a much better person(she always had great, outstanding character, but now she's even better)...
25th of Feb, 2012 by ned l.
Teresa Violet Arasheben---Upstanding citizen - Has contributed a lot to society---a truly fantastic person
Teresa Violet Arasheben has contributed a lot to society and really is a great person and citizen. Sure she has a past record. But these days, who doesn't? Teresa Violet Arasheben has come out an eveb better person than she already was before. The last record was way back in 2006...
25th of Feb, 2012 by ned l.
Teresa Violet Arasheben---Upstanding citizen - Teresa Violet Arasheben is a wonderful individual
Teresa Violet Arasheben has overcome the jealousy, envy, hate of some sick person:Natasha Leann Thompson and Teresa Arasheben has made a real success of herself. Teresa Violet Arasheben has not only made her life right and made a success of herself, but she has contributed a lot to society, not just in Los Angeles, but she has done so much good in other areas of California...
27th of Feb, 2012 by ned l.
Teresa Violet Arasheben - Teresa Violet Arasheben is a classy, professional person
I have known Teresa Violet Arasheben for quite a long time(over 6 years) and she has been and is one of the most honest, positive, and overall best friends to have and the most professional individual to work with. Teresa Violet Arasheben has absolute sel-respect, class, and integrity...
28th of Feb, 2012 by ned l.
Teresa Violet Arasheben - Teresa Violet Arasheben---The best person to work ans asociate with
Violet Arasheben was a co-worker of mine for approximately 5 years. Violet Arasheben was and is the most upbeat, positive, honest associate a person can have.
I have been in a variety of situations, both professional and personal with her and there has not been a single time when s...
21st of Mar, 2012 by plinkoo
Teresa Violet Arasheben - Teresa Violet Arasheben is a wonderful individual
Teresa Violet Arasheben conducts herself just as she runs her business, which is always with utmost respect, dignity, strength, honesty, and professionalism. Teresa Violet Arasheben has been and is an example to aspire to. Every decent person who has known and knows Ms. Arasheben is proud to know her and to associate with her at all times...
14th of Jun, 2012 by apehunter
Teresa Violet Arasheben - Teresa Violet arasheben is an honorable individual
Teresa Violet Arasheben is a pleasure to know and associate with. We have worked closely with her and seen all of the selfless and kind things she has done to help those in need. Teresa Violet Arasheben has given wholesome foods, clothing, bedding, and other items to homeless and unemployed citizens ...
13th of May, 2012 by apehunter
Teresa Violet Arasheben - Teresa Violet Arasheben is a wonderful associate and friend.
associating, and working with Teresa Violet Arasheben for several years. Teresa Violet Arasheben has utmost integrity and honesty in everything she does, at all times. Teresa Violet Arasheben has always conducted herself with self-respect, class, and dignity. I have known Violet Arasheben as an upstanding person always... |
|
|
Post your Comment
|
|
|
