Billionaire Real Estate Developer’s Fraud Scheme Inflates Property Value and Frames Indigent Sexual Assault Victim; Victim Petitions SCOTUS to Review Wealthy Sexual Predators’ Unjust Manipulation of the Courts

Billionaire Real Estate Developer’s Fraud Scheme Inflates Property Value and Frames Indigent Sexual Assault Victim;

Victim Petitions SCOTUS to Review Wealthy Sexual Predators’ Unjust Manipulation of the Courts that

Steals $3 Million in Statutory Attorney’s Fees; alleged in court filing.

Precedent Setting Case Affects Thousands of Sexual Assault Victims and Indigent Litigants.

Filed and Pending, Vidala Aaronoff v Curtis Olson, No. 23-6163

Los Angeles- Petitioner to the US Supreme Court Vidala Aaronoff urges the Highest Court to review an Equal Access to Justice claim of a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, arising from a California restraining order court’s unjustified award of statutory attorney’s fees. Although Vidala Aaronoff, an indigent woman, prevailed, the court ordered her to pay billionaire Curtis Olson’s astronomical attorney’s fees, which ballooned to over $3 Million via a legal loophole for the super-rich.

Petition alleges: Nexus Development CEO Curtis Olson fraudulently inflated a residential property value by listing neighboring properties millions of dollars over value to spike property algorithms. Then Olson lied to the trial court that Aaronoff owned the property to mislead the court that she was wealthy. Shockingly, Olson owns the property.

Olson is accused of luring Aaronoff to his residence and attempting to rape her in May 2015. Aaronoff sought a Civil Harassment Restraining Order, which resulted in a three-year protective order in December 2015. Soon Olson violated it. The court retained jurisdiction, Aaronoff sought enforcement and Olson retaliated with a meritless cross-restraining order.

The combined dueling restraining orders were both denied. Given that each party prevented the other from obtaining a restraining order, they were both deemed prevailing parties and entitled to statutory attorney’s fees. Olson has the means to afford expensive counsel whereas Aaronoff mostly self-represented does not. Olson claimed $300,000 in legal fees dwarfing Aaronoff’s fees. The average restraining order attorney’s fees are $5,000-$10,000.

Financial assessment of the ability to pay fees is not included in every statutory code, but California has overarching laws requiring the courts to ensure equal access to the judicial system, as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court considered Aaronoff’s indigency stating, “It looks to do substantial justice by determining whether there is or is not an ability to pay.”

However, Olson’s property-inflating fraudulent scheme caused the trial court to erroneously believe Aaronoff was wealthy and to order her to pay Olson $80,000 in offsetting statutory fees. Subsequently, Olson’s fees ballooned to over $3 million from charging Aaronoff for his attorney’s collection fees, which include derivative lawsuits against Aaronoff’s mother, brother and others in search of that non-existent $80,000. Olson’s revenge goal is to make Aaronoff homeless and destroy her family.

Therefore, in dueling restraining order situations where both parties fail to prove their affirmative claims but prevail in defense, the judicial system only rewards wealthy litigants, who can outspend indigent victims.

Although Aaronoff subsequently proved she never owned the property and was indeed indigent, the appellate court ignored time-honored equitable laws overturning the trial court’s “substantial justice by determining ability to pay,” which sidestepped property ownership, holding that particular statute does not require “ability to pay” determinations; thus Aaronoff was ordered to pay Olson’s outrageous legal fees. This allows courts to protect wealthy sexual predators and financially punish vulnerable victims who seek redress in the courts, weakening the public’s trust.

Attorney Alan Reinach in support of Petitioner Vidala Aaronoff states, “Ordering indigent litigants’ to pay exorbitant attorney’s fees is a gross violation of due process, and has a chilling effect on their ability to even pursue just claims in court. We urge SCOTUS review!”

SCOTUS Docket: Aaronoff v Olson Case No. 23-6163

YouTube: California Supreme Court Review Sexual Predator Olson’s Cross-Complaint

California Supreme Court Unanimously Dismisses Sexual Predator Olson’s Meritless Case

Petitioner Vidala Aaronoff’s Attorney Alan Reinach Contact Details

Alan Reinach State Bar No.196899

Address: Church State Council

2686 Townsgate Rd, Westlake Village, CA 91361

Phone: 805-413-7396



Contact for Vidala Aaronoff: Edward Lozzi & Associates Public Relations 310-922-1200

HBNaturals Products


Be the first to comment

We love your comments

%d bloggers like this: