🎙️ Podcast Description: LA County DA Nathan Hochman Conceals Judicial Fraud In this explosive exposé, host Michael Taylor dissects how newly elected Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman has inherited — and now conceals — a provable case of judicial fraud in People v. Michael Taylor (XNEGA111132). This episode unpacks the illegal filing of a Penal Code § 730 competency evaluation by an unverified court staffer, Mery Alaberkyan, without a judge’s lawful order — a procedural ambush that led to unconstitutional detention, forced medication, and forfeiture of trial rights. Despite formal notice and overwhelming evidence sent to his office, DA Hochman has taken no corrective action, effectively shielding the misconduct of former Judge Suzette Clover, Judicial Assistant Mery Alaberkyan, and rogue public defenders. This episode explains how this silence constitutes constructive concealment and implicates the DA’s office in the ongoing obstruction of justice. Listeners will learn how this case challenges the limits of prosecutorial ethics, due process, and separation of powers in California's criminal courts — and why silence at the top signals complicity. > Key Topics: Judicial fraud, Penal Code § 730, due process violations, DA office accountability, public defender collusion, criminal court corruption in Los Angeles.
How Nathan Hochman Applied Double Standards to the Menendez Brothers
On June 27, 2025, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office , led by Nathan Hochman , filed a forceful reply brief in the Menendez resentencing matter — a reply that sent ripples through legal and public circles precisely because it explicitly urged the court to weigh honesty, insight, and acceptance of responsibility as determinative factors in sentencing and risk assessment. But that very standard — a standard of accountability and truth — appears to vanish like mist the moment prosecutorial interests turn inward. In a press release bearing Hochman’s official imprimatur, the DA’s office did not mince words: “The Court must consider such lack of full insight and lack of acceptance of responsibility for their murderous actions in deciding whether the Menendez brothers pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the community.” The office continued, affirmatively stating that their motion position was based on “the current state of the record and the Menendez brothers’ current and ...
Comments
Post a Comment