Jonathan L Rosenbloom

Judge Jonathan L. Rosenbloom[Redacted by Ed.]During my trial last year, he would not allow any of my witnesses to testify including a former Los Angeles City Attorney. He would not accept any evidence that would incriminate the opposing lawyers or the court-appointed trustee. Judge Rosenbloom witnessed the court-appointed trustee and his lawyer lying during cross-examination and will not acknowledge it. After I filed two motions to disqualify Judge Rosenbloom, he will not get off my case. Most recently, he allowed a totally fraudulent accounting by the court-appointed trustee Jeffrey Siegel and will not remove him. Judge Rosenbloom also witnessed another attorney lying about his first and only accounting under oath. This lawyer Daniel Herbert, did nothing but lie during the entire trial. Daniel Hebert also asked permission to retaliate against me by stealing from my inheritance if I continue to file complaints about their criminal misconduct in Probate Dept. 11 to Sheriff's deputies or the Commission On Judicial Performance. Judge Rosenbloom agreed to his proposed retaliation threats during the trial! Not only is Judge Rosenbloom not following the law he will lie about the law. Judge Jonathan L. Rosenbloom should not be in any court or the legal profession!

Judge Rosenbloom was appointed to the bench by former Gov. Jerry Brown, who appointed most judges based on the recommendation of disgraced attorney, Tom Girardi. The State Bar of California never vetted Judge Rosenbloom for his qualification to sit as a judge. In December of 2024, Judge Rosenbloom, on his own, granted the son of an 82 year old woman a temporary conservatorship to marshal the woman's finances and put them in SMBC Manubank. He then appointed a number of people to start billing the woman's estate. No medical declaration of incapacity exists. At no time did Rosenbloom find the temp conservatorship was the least restrictive alternative. At no time did Rosenbloom assess the woman's needs before allowing her son to confiscate her resources. Letters issued based on a dubious bond for $500,000. Rosenbloom had a duty to approve the bond and the surety before allowing Letters to issue allowing the son to take control of the woman's finances. Rosenbloom did not approve the bond or the surety. Initially, research revealed the surety was not admitted to do business in California. Now, the surety is miraculously registered with CDI. The bond document has no licensing information, no bond number, no accurate address or telephone number for the surety. The son now has his mother's life savings and her monthly retirement benefits. He doesn't buy her groceries regularly, he doesn't maintain her properties, he doesn't provide her transportation, neither does he ensure she has recreation and social activities. When informed, Rosenbloom said it wasn't before him and he wouldn't address the son's elder abuse. After receiving my complaint, the State of California protected the court, judge Rosenbloom, and the son's attorney by registering a surety that was not registered as recent as November of 2024. Apparently, it's a thing to just file a fake document and say you're bonded and no one checks whether the bond is real or the company is admitted in the State

170.6 this judge immediately now that he is in Dept 11. Do not have a conservatorship matter in front of him.

This judge's temperament is substantially below what it should be. He recently threatened an 80-year-old woman with sanctions because she wanted to be heard about why her son should not have a conservatorship over her person and estate. He also threatened her daughter with sanctions for opposing the conservatorship petition. He said medical records were inadmissible hearsay and had to be reminded about the business records exception. Although original jurisdiction is questionable, he issued orders basically imprisoning the woman by ruling that she can't leave Los Angeles County until the next hearing date. There is no mental capacity declaration on file.

If you're not familiar with LA Probate immediately 170.6 this judge. He is extremely biased toward the attorneys that he knows. If you're one of the attorneys he likes, he will violate the law to help you. If you're not an attorney he likes, your clients will suffer.

Don't go before this judge if you can help it. He is biased. If you get him, ask to have him changed. If you make an appearance before him and he hears your case, it might be impossible to get rid of him until he might ruin your life. As a member of a minority group, I feel that he shares the same innate hate for certain groups, whether he intends to discriminate or not. Your option might include filing form 170.1 by which you ask him to remove himself from the case. You could also contact The California Commission On Judicial Performance. I don't know which one of his friends made one of the comments here, but I agree with the other litigant. This judge is DEFINITELY biased. Stay away from Dept 79 in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Los Angeles Downtown.