Repost: Eugene Ingram, Darryl Mounger & LAPD Chief Gates Case

Repost: Eugene Ingram, Darryl Mounger & LAPD Chief Gates Case Scientology

Note: Shari Martina Molina turned 40 this month -- her birthday is 10/15/1964. She later had a child in 1987 with Ray Spiess, Jr. (Sound Editor for the Sopranos, and Writer/Director of Award-Winning 2001 Short Film "Dreamer").

When Shari and Ray they had a falling out in their relationship in the 1990's (they never married), Ray filed in a civil case that Shari threatened him, and a group of men with rifles showed up one night and shot up the front of his home.

Repost:

Plaintiffs Darryl Evan Mounger & Eugene Martin Ingram vs. Defendant LAPD Chief Darryl Gates Civil Case #C326726 (1980) in Los Angeles County Superior Court Source: Los Angeles County Archives

Eugene Martin Ingram's cause of action in this suit, is to challenge a June 1980 change of LAPD Internal Policy, which prevented him from defending Darryl Mounger in an internal LAPD Police Board hearing.

Facts related to the case: Mounger, along with Ingram, served as a LAPD officer in the Hollywood Division in the late 1970's. His former occupation was as a used car salesman in the 1960's. As a Sergeant, Ingram was the Supervising Officer to Mounger.

In late 1978 Mounger met 14-year-old crime victim Shari Molina, then a runaway, at the Hollywood station house. Mounger followed up the meeting with a social pursuit of Shari, including breaking into the apartment of her then-boyfriend Ricky Masting and confronting her (in Masting's bed) with how she was "treating" him in November 1979. (He later arrested Masting on what was claimed to be a "set up" charge).

In January 1980, 15 year-old Shari went on a weekend trip to Palm Springs with both the 34 year-old Mounger and 33 year-old Ingram, according to LAPD Officer Alan B. Deal. (For additional perspective, consider that at the time Mounger's own daughter Shawn Andra Mounger, was then 13 years old). This trip, including accusations of Mounger's "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" by means of a sexual relationship, which later became the focus of the LAPD inquiry. Mounger later "married" Shari in a ceremony in Mexico, at a time when LAPD was investigating if he was still married to his first wife Madlyn Francene Mounger, which infuriated Shari's mother Cilla Molina. Cilla made a tearful call on February 27, 1980 to LAPD Hollywood Officer Al Bei with these accusations, which progressed into a formal inquiry by LAPD Internal Affairs' Officer Captain Don W. Vincent.

In response, a Private Investigator went to Cilla's home and tried to persuade her to sign papers declaring Shari to be an "emancipated minor" no longer subject to her oversight. Then on March 6, 1980, the day before the LAPD investigation started, Shari married Darryl in Utah at a ceremony also attended by her father. As a result, Darryl Mounger cited a privacy "privilege" based on their relationship as a married couple, when questions were asked about his sexual activities with the underage Shari.

The LAPD didn't want Eugene Ingram to represent Mounger in a scheduled June 1980 Police Board hearing, so they informed him of a new LAPD Policy that Supervising Officers could not act as Counsel to an accused Police Officer. Ingram reportedly was threatened with "insubordination" if he did not answer questions related to what he knew of the Mounger's relationship prior to their marriage. Eugene and Darryl instead sued the Chief of the LAPD Darryl Gates, asking that the new policy be voided and that he not be compelled to answer questions of that nature. Ingram stated in the suit that the Defendant Gates was "falsely accusing me of misconduct," with regards to a chagre of "dereliction of duties" for not reporting Mounger's actions to the department prior to the investigation.

One witness in the case, a teenage female friend of Shari Moungers, made a statement regarding Eugene Ingram's actions in November 1979, which was related in the case file as follows: "Sargent Ingram approached the witness while on duty, and invited her out with him. The witness refused. Approximately 10 minutes later, Sgt. Ingram approached the witness, put his arm around her, touched and began to fondle her breast. The witness backed away from him."

The attorney in this case, for both Mounger and Ingram, was Steven Lincoln Paine, then of Cotkin, Collins, Kolts & Franscell of Los Angeles.

Mounger eventually retired from the force with a disability pension in 1985, claiming he was "set up" by the LAPD on a phony charge (Los Angeles Times 9/18/1990 pg. B1). Mounger then attended Southwestern College and became an attorney in the late 1980's, and represented LA Police Officers accused of misconduct in several high-profile cases; including Stacey Koon of the "Rodney King" beating, Mark Fuhrman of the O.J. Simpson trial, and defendants charged in the late 1990's "Rampart Division" trials. He is still currently married to Madlyn Francene Mounger, and his law practice is based at 4455 Van Nuys Blvd, Sherman Oaks, California.

Al Bie of the LAPD went on to work for Eugene Ingram in the 1980's, reportedly harassing "squirrel" David Mayo in Santa Barbara in 1984 by photographing visitors to his alternative church and implying to neighboring businesses that Mayo was under investigation for white- collar crimes.

<p><hr><p> Subject: Re: Repost: Eugene Ingram, Darryl Mounger & LAPD Chief Gates Case
From: ptsc <ptsc@nowhere.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:17:00 -0400

On 27 Oct 2004 16:57:52 -0700, sonofaningram@hotmail.com (Jason Christopher Ingram) wrote:

>Plaintiffs Darryl Evan Mounger & Eugene Martin Ingram vs.
>Defendant LAPD Chief Darryl Gates
>Civil Case #C326726 (1980) in Los Angeles County Superior Court
>Source: Los Angeles County Archives

Someone got this wrong somewhere, because I had this listed as C326725. Now, either you got it wrong (which seems unlikely if you managed to get the case file with YOUR number), or Information America got it wrong.

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1980 through 01-22-1998 Last Updated: 02-05-1998 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK CIVIL Case Number: C326725 Filing Date: 06-18-1980 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES District: CENTRAL (LOS ANGELES) Court: CIVIL Defendant(s): GATES DARYL F Defendant(s): LOS ANG CITY Plaintiff(s): MOUNGER DARRYL Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M Plaintiff(s): MOUNGER SHARI

I've been wondering what this case was for years, and I expected it was something sordid and seamy. Thanks for answering my questions. If you could scan any actual documents related to this stuff, I'd be thrilled.

Anyway, here's a list of similar things, to get it in Google and associated with this thread with a nice subject line full of juicy search terms.

---

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1980 through 01-22-1998 Last Updated: 02-05-1998 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK CRIMINAL Case Number: A 365409 Filing Date: 01-28-1981 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES District: CENTRAL (LOS ANGELES) Court: CRIMINAL Defendant(s): INGRAM EUGENE M Penal Code Violation(s): 182.5 Penal Code Violation(s): 266.H Penal Code Violation(s): 266.I Defendant(s): WARD ROBERT Penal Code Violation(s): 182.5 Penal Code Violation(s): 266.H Penal Code Violation(s): 266.I

{As a quick look at the law books reveals, this is the pimping/pandering/obstruction of justice business that got Ingram tossed off the LAPD. Ward and another defendant, of the last name of "Grunwald," both pled guilty. Only Ingram walked.}

{182. (a) If two or more persons conspire: (1) To commit any crime. (2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime. (3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action or proceeding. (4) To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses or by false promises with fraudulent intent not to perform such promises. (5) To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws. (6) To commit any crime against the person of the President or Vice President of the United States, the governor of any state or territory, any United States justice or judge, or the secretary of any of the executive departments of the United States. They are punishable as follows: When they conspire to commit any crime against the person of any official specified in paragraph (6), they are guilty of a felony and are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for five, seven, or nine years. When they conspire to commit any other felony, they shall be punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of the that felony. If the felony is one for which different punishments are prescribed for different degrees, the jury or court which finds the defendant guilty thereof shall determine the degree of the felony defendant conspired to commit. If the degree is not so determined, the punishment for conspiracy to commit the felony shall be that prescribed for the lesser degree, except in the case of conspiracy to commit murder, in which case the punishment shall be that prescribed for murder in the first degree. If the felony is conspiracy to commit two or more felonies which have different punishments and the commission of those felonies constitute but one offense of conspiracy, the penalty shall be that prescribed for the felony which has the greater maximum term. When they conspire to do an act described in paragraph (4), they shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both. When they conspire to do any of the other acts described in this section, they shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or in the state prison, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or both. All cases of conspiracy may be prosecuted and tried in the superior court of any county in which any overt act tending to effect such conspiracy shall be done. (b) Upon a trial for conspiracy, in a case where an overt act is necessary to constitute the offense, the defendant cannot be convicted unless one or more overt acts are expressly alleged in the indictment or information, nor unless one of the acts alleged is proved; but other overt acts not alleged may be given in evidence.}

{266h. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), any person who, knowing another person is a prostitute, lives or derives support or maintenance in whole or in part from the earnings or proceeds of the person's prostitution, or from money loaned or advanced to or charged against that person by any keeper or manager or inmate of a house or other place where prostitution is practiced or allowed, or who solicits or receives compensation for soliciting for the person, is guilty of pimping, a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, four, or six years. (b) If the person engaged in prostitution is a minor over the age of 16 years, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, four, or six years. If the person engaged in prostitution is under 16 years of age, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.}

{266i. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), any person who does any of the following is guilty of pandering, a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, four, or six years: (1) Procures another person for the purpose of prostitution. (2) By promises, threats, violence, or by any device or scheme, causes, induces, persuades or encourages another person to become a prostitute. (3) Procures for another person a place as an inmate in a house of prostitution or as an inmate of any place in which prostitution is encouraged or allowed within this state. (4) By promises, threats, violence or by any device or scheme, causes, induces, persuades or encourages an inmate of a house of prostitution, or any other place in which prostitution is encouraged or allowed, to remain therein as an inmate. (5) By fraud or artifice, or by duress of person or goods, or by abuse of any position of confidence or authority, procures another person for the purpose of prostitution, or to enter any place in which prostitution is encouraged or allowed within this state, or to come into this state or leave this state for the purpose of prostitution. (6) Receives or gives, or agrees to receive or give, any money or thing of value for procuring, or attempting to procure, another person for the purpose of prostitution, or to come into this state or leave this state for the purpose of prostitution. (b) If the other person is a minor over the age of 16 years, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, four, or six years. Where the other person is under 16 years of age, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.}

****

{Here's the Ingram Investigations one; note who is listed as the debtor. Ingram hides behind his wife, Regine Asher Ingram.}

Database: JUDGMENT Information Current: 07-21-1986 through 01-26-1998 Last Updated: 02-15-1998 (Updated on a WEEKLY basis) Filed: JUDG-RECORDERS OFFICE Filing Number: 932522919 Filing Date: 12-28-1993 Filing Type: JUDGMENT Status: SATISFIED 02-07-1994 State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES Filing Office: RECORDERS OFFICE 12400 E IMPERIAL HWY FOR DOCUMENT ORDERING, CALL (800) 777-8567 TO ORDER ORIGINAL FILINGS AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS. NORWALK 90650 Creditor: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO Debtor: INGRAM INVESTIGATIONS 845 W AVE 37 LOS ANGELES 90065 Debtor: INGRAM, REGINE

****

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1980 through 01-22-1998 Last Updated: 02-05-1998 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK CIVIL Case Number: C358970 Filing Date: 03-10-1981 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES District: CENTRAL (LOS ANGELES) Court: CIVIL Defendant(s): GATES DARYL Defendant(s): MADELL JOHN Defendant(s): LOS ANG CITY POLICE CHF Defendant(s): LOS ANG CITY POLICE COMMR BD Defendant(s): REITER LOUIS Defendant(s): SPARKENBACH JOHN Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M

{This is a lawsuit filed by Gene against Daryl Gates and John Madell, probably concerning his firing from the LAPD in the notorious pimping and drug scandal. Daryl Gates and John Madell were Police Chief and Police Commissioner respectively. I am not familiar with Louis Ritter or John Sparkenbach as yet.}

****

{This is another case of Gene suing Daryl Gates. Also listed in this case is Darryl Mounger, who among being an attorney for Gene Ingram, was also Mark "N-Word" Fuhrman's attorney, and who specializes in defending corrupt LAPD cops against Internal Affairs.}

****

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1980 through 01-22-1998 Last Updated: 02-05-1998 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK CIVIL Case Number: C394624 Filing Date: 12-22-1981 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES District: CENTRAL (LOS ANGELES) Court: CIVIL Defendant(s): GATES DARYL F Defendant(s): LOS ANG CITY Defendant(s): LOS ANG CITY POLICE BD COMMR Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M

{Yet another lawsuit by Gene against Daryl Gates. I bet there's some dirt in these files somewhere, considering the seamy nature of the facts at dispute.}

****

{Hold your breath, here comes a big one. Eugene Ingram is listed as plaintiff in this humongous mass of back-and- forth cross-complaints between the cult and a bunch of Free Zoners, including Sarge Gerbode and the OTHER Ron Neumann, who was/is(?) a whopping great squirrel. I believe that this is the case where Helena Kobrin became a textbook example of a frivolous litigator.}

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1984 through 02-27-1996 Last Updated: 03-05-1996 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK Case Number: 382561 Filing Date: 03-10-1993 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: SAN MATEO Court: CIVIL Type of Case: CIVIL COMPLAINTS Defendant(s): INGRAM EUGEN M ET AL Date added: 04-13-1993 Defendant(s): CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SF ET A Date added: 04-13-1993 Defendant(s): GERBODE FRANK ET AL Date added: 05-13-1993 Defendant(s): INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ETC Date added: 05-13-1993 Defendant(s): CHURCH OF THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH ET Date added: 05-13-1993 Defendant(s): CNTR APPLIED METAPSYCHOLOGY ET A Date added: 05-13-1993 Defendant(s): CHURCH OF THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH ET Date added: 06-10-1993 Defendant(s): GERBODE FRANK ET AL Date added: 06-10-1993 Defendant(s): INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ETC Date added: 06-10-1993 Defendant(s): CNTR APPLIED METAPSYCHOLOGY ET A Date added: 06-10-1993 Defendant(s): CHURCH OF THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH ET Date added: 07-15-1993 Defendant(s): GERBODE FRANK ET AL Date added: 07-15-1993 Defendant(s): INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ETC Date added: 07-15-1993 Defendant(s): CNTR APPLIED METAPSYCHOLOGY ET A Date added: 07-15-1993 Defendant(s): INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ETC Date added: 08-15-1993 Defendant(s): GERBODE FRANK ET AL Date added: 08-15-1993 Defendant(s): CNTR APPLIED METAPSYCHOLOGY ET A Date added: 08-15-1993 Defendant(s): CHURCH OF THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH ET Date added: 08-15-1993 Defendant(s): GERBODE FRANK ET AL Date added: 10-11-1993 Defendant(s): GERBODE FRANK ET AL Date added: 10-11-1993 Defendant(s): NEUMAN RONALD ET AL Date added: 10-11-1993 Defendant(s): INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ETC Date added: 10-11-1993 Defendant(s): CENTER FOR APPLIED METAP ETC Date added: 10-11-1993 Defendant(s): CHURCH OF UNIVERSAL TRUTH ET AL Date added: 10-11-1993 Defendant(s): FRENCH GEROLD ET AL Date added: 10-11-1993 Defendant(s): CNTR APPLIED METAPSYCHOLOGY ET A Date added: 10-11-1993 Defendant(s): INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ETC Date added: 10-11-1993 Defendant(s): CHURCH OF THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH ET Date added: 10-11-1993 Defendant(s): NEUMAN RONALD ET AL Date added: 11-15-1993 Defendant(s): INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ETC Date added: 11-15-1993 Defendant(s): GERBODE FRANK ET AL Date added: 11-15-1993 Defendant(s): FRENCH GEROLD ET AL Date added: 11-15-1993 Defendant(s): CHURCH OF THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH ET Date added: 11-15-1993 Defendant(s): CHURCH OF UNIVERSAL TRUTH ET AL Date added: 11-15-1993 Defendant(s): GERBODE FRANK ET AL Date added: 11-15-1993 Defendant(s): INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ETC Date added: 11-15-1993 Defendant(s): CENTER FOR APPLIED METAP ETC Date added: 11-15-1993 Defendant(s): CNTR APPLIED METAPSYCHOLOGY ET A Date added: 11-15-1993 Defendant(s): INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ETC Date added: 12-21-1993 Defendant(s): INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ETC Date added: 12-21-1993 Defendant(s): CNTR APPLIED METAPSYCHOLOGY ET A Date added: 12-21-1993 Defendant(s): GERBODE FRANK ET AL Date added: 12-21-1993 Defendant(s): GERBODE FRANK ET AL Date added: 12-21-1993 Defendant(s): CHURCH OF UNIVERSAL TRUTH ET AL Date added: 12-21-1993 Defendant(s): NEUMAN RONALD ET AL Date added: 12-21-1993 Defendant(s): CHURCH OF THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH ET Date added: 12-21-1993 Defendant(s): FRENCH GEROLD ET AL Date added: 12-21-1993 Defendant(s): CENTER FOR APPLIED METAP ETC Date added: 12-21-1993 Defendant(s): NEUMAN RONALD ET AL Date added: 01-11-1994 Defendant(s): CHURCH OF UNIVERSAL TRUTH ET AL Date added: 01-11-1994 Defendant(s): GERBODE FRANK ET AL Date added: 01-11-1994 Defendant(s): GERBODE FRANK ET AL Date added: 01-11-1994 Defendant(s): CENTER FOR APPLIED METAP ETC Date added: 01-11-1994 Defendant(s): CNTR APPLIED METAPSYCHOLOGY ET A Date added: 01-11-1994 Defendant(s): CHURCH OF THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH ET Date added: 01-11-1994 Defendant(s): FRENCH GEROLD ET AL Date added: 01-11-1994 Defendant(s): INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ETC Date added: 01-11-1994 Defendant(s): INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ETC Date added: 01-11-1994 Plaintiff(s): GERBODE FRANK ET AL Date added: 04-13-1993 Plaintiff(s): CHURCH OF UNIVERSL TRUTH ET AL Date added: 04-13-1993 Plaintiff(s): CENTER FOR METAPSYCHOLOGY ET AL Date added: 04-13-1993 Plaintiff(s): CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SF ET A Date added: 05-13-1993 Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M ET AL Date added: 05-13-1993 Plaintiff(s): CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SF ET A Date added: 06-10-1993 Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M ET AL Date added: 06-10-1993 Plaintiff(s): CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SF ET A Date added: 07-15-1993 Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M ET AL Date added: 07-15-1993 Plaintiff(s): CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SF ET A Date added: 08-15-1993 Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M ET AL Date added: 08-15-1993 Plaintiff(s): CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SF ET A Date added: 10-11-1993 Plaintiff(s): CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SF ET A Date added: 10-11-1993 Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M ET AL Date added: 10-11-1993 Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M ET AL Date added: 10-11-1993 Plaintiff(s): CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SF ET A Date added: 11-15-1993 Plaintiff(s): CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SF ET A Date added: 11-15-1993 Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M ET AL Date added: 11-15-1993 Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M ET AL Date added: 11-15-1993 Plaintiff(s): CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SF ET A Date added: 12-21-1993 Plaintiff(s): CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SF ET A Date added: 12-21-1993 Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M ET AL Date added: 12-21-1993 Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M ET AL Date added: 12-21-1993 Plaintiff(s): CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SF ET A Date added: 01-11-1994 Plaintiff(s): CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SF ET A Date added: 01-11-1994 Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M ET AL Date added: 01-11-1994 Plaintiff(s): INGRAM EUGENE M ET AL Date added: 01-11-1994

****

{Right here are some "iffy" ones, things that are either just "Eugene Ingram" or "Eugene Eric Ingram" or (probably) unrelated Ingrams.}

****

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1980 through 01-22-1998 Last Updated: 02-05-1998 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK CRIMINAL Case Number: B 098124 Filing Date: 03-10-1964 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES District: CENTRAL (LOS ANGELES) Court: CRIMINAL Defendant(s): INGRAM CLARENCE EUGENE

****

{This is a case involving a Eugene Ingram, a Harold Ingram, and a Thomas Theodis. Probably a different Eugene Ingram.}

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1980 through 01-22-1998 Last Updated: 02-05-1998 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK CRIMINAL Case Number: A 156623 Filing Date: 06-19-1968 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES District: SOUTHWEST (TORRANCE) Court: CRIMINAL Defendant(s): INGRAM EUGENE Penal Code Violation(s): 187.1 Penal Code Violation(s): 211 Defendant(s): INGRAM HAROLD Penal Code Violation(s): 187.1 Penal Code Violation(s): 211 Defendant(s): THOMAS THEODIS Penal Code Violation(s): 187.1 Penal Code Violation(s): 211

****

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1980 through 01-22-1998 Last Updated: 02-05-1998 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK CRIMINAL Case Number: A 242460 Filing Date: 03-05-1969 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES District: CENTRAL (LOS ANGELES) Court: CRIMINAL Defendant(s): HANZY CLIFTON Penal Code Violation(s): 286 Defendant(s): INGRAM EUGENE Penal Code Violation(s): 286

****

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1980 through 01-22-1998 Last Updated: 02-05-1998 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK CRIMINAL Case Number: CR 273106 Filing Date: 04-24-1963 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES District: CENTRAL (LOS ANGELES) Court: CRIMINAL Defendant(s): INGRAM EUGENE Penal Code Violation(s): H 11530

****

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1980 through 01-22-1998 Last Updated: 02-05-1998 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK CRIMINAL Case Number: BA 084892 Filing Date: 05-09-1994 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES District: CENTRAL (LOS ANGELES) Court: CRIMINAL Defendant(s): INGRAM EUGENE Penal Code Violation(s): P 451.D Penal Code Violation(s): P 455 Defendant(s): INGRAM EUGENE ERIC Penal Code Violation(s): P 451.D Penal Code Violation(s): P 455

****

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1980 through 01-22-1998 Last Updated: 02-05-1998 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK CRIMINAL Case Number: BA 026019 Filing Date: 10-09-1990 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES District: CENTRAL (LOS ANGELES) Court: CRIMINAL Defendant(s): INGRAM EUGENE E Penal Code Violation(s): H 11350

****

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1980 through 01-22-1998 Last Updated: 02-05-1998 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK CRIMINAL Case Number: BA 056338 Filing Date: 06-19-1992 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES District: CENTRAL (LOS ANGELES) Court: CRIMINAL Defendant(s): BAYLOR GILBERT CONSTANIC Penal Code Violation(s): H 11351.5 Defendant(s): INGRAM EUGENE ERIC Penal Code Violation(s): H 11351.5

****

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1980 through 01-22-1998 Last Updated: 02-05-1998 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK CIVIL Case Number: REL181698I Filing Date: 04-16-1986 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES District: CENTRAL (LOS ANGELES) Court: RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF SUPP Defendant(s): INGRAM EUGENE ERIC Plaintiff(s): BLACK T RHOSIA ELEEN

****

Database: LAWSUIT Information Current: 01-01-1980 through 01-22-1998 Last Updated: 02-05-1998 (Updated on a MONTHLY basis) Filed: COUNTY CLERK CIVIL Case Number: BY189043 Filing Date: 09-11-1996 CA State: CALIFORNIA County: LOS ANGELES District: CENTRAL (LOS ANGELES) Defendant(s): INGRAM EUGENE ERIC Plaintiff(s): LOS ANG CO

****

{Many of these are other Eugene Ingrams, included solely for entertainment value}

Go Back