The referee filed a report in my case which is practically a word-for-word copy of the disciplinary prosecutor's "Proposed Referee's Report", urging the referee to falsely tell the court that there was a hearing in the case on "reasonable notice" to me, which never happened (and that's why the disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini attempted to commence a criminal proceeding against me, for catching her red-handed in offering fabricated court transcripts to the referee and urging him to present that transcript as true to the court).
Compare the "Proposed Referee's Report" by Mary Gasparini
and the actual Referee's Report dated February 17, 2015 and, according to the letter of the clerk of the court, filed with the court on February 19, 2015:
The referee falsely presented to the court, as Mary Gasparini urged him to do, that the transcript of the January 12, 2015 conference claiming that it was a hearing where I appeared as a witness and testified, is a "true and correct" copy of what occurred during that appearance.
I already posted here the two recording of the "scheduled pre-trials", of the pre-trial conference of October 23, 2014, and of the pre-trial conference of January 12, 2015. The recording of the October 23, 2014 conference clearly shows that I ask the referee whether the next appearance will be a "hearing", and he clearly answers me (which was not reflected in the transcript of that conference) that it will NOT be a hearing.
Yet, the referee submitted to the court a transcript of the next appearance, that occurred on January 12, 2015, which said it was a "hearing" where I was "called as a witness" and "testified" (without a reference, on whose behalf I did that, and without direct or cross-examination).
Apparently, since the court imposes no discipline on its referees and no discipline on disciplinary prosecutors committing fraud upon the court, such cooking of the transcripts and presenting false evidence to the court will continue.
It is interesting to mention that at the very same time that the referee called the January 12, 2015 appearance "a scheduled pre-trial", the referee has made "findings of fact" without holding any evidentiary hearings (trials, not "pre-trials"), and that was exactly as the disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini has frivolously and fraudulently urged him to do, in complete defiance of court order of September 30, 2015 directing the referee to "take proof", meaning "to conduct an evidentiary hearing", on notice to me - and that never happened.
So, this is one more count of successful fraud upon the court by disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini. Apparently, when there is no control or oversight over actions of such public officials, misconduct is, as is expected to be, rampant.