State Court or Federal Court?

I just returned from the “Ex-Parte Motion to Vacate Judgment” on the matter of Lacambra vs. Shea Properties. The Hon. Judge Makino was back from vacation and called my case first. He actually asked me to put the matter on regular motion to preserve the meaning and construction of the “Ex-Parte Motion”. That means I have to serve the Defendants with my motion and give them the opportunity to respond in writing. 


I was eager to have the ruling corrected right away so I can continue with my discoveries. It turns out that there may be some advantages to this, if I decide to let the ruling stand and not oppose or appeal it. One of the biggest hurdles I had on this case was being able to raise the resources required to do a proper "discoveries" on a 126-year-old company with operations strewn across California.  To prepare my case for trial, I will have to interview almost all of the management staff and employees to uncover every nuance of their corporate culture. If their corporate culture is permissive of tenant-rights violations, then, arguably, I bolster my case. In our society laws require that we, as members, reasonably protect others from being harmed.

After consulting with a friend who has experience in practicing law in Federal Courts, I found differences that play to my advantage. First, I can forgo the use of court reporters when I conduct my discoveries. I can actually use a video cam to record the deposition, saving considerable expenses – many thousands. But as I review my research and discovery materials, I am the more inclined to believe that the Federal Courts may be the best jurisdiction for my action.

A legal battle has an ebb and flow character to it. By the time this case is completely done, it will have gone through many more motions and oppositions. Even if I win, it will certainly be appealed and held in appellate court for any number of years. So I have got to find a potent enough reason to keep this fight going. This case has ramifications on the future of Landlord-Tenant relationships. It is my belief that the current laws are antiquated, particularly for cases involving a tenant who lives in a dwelling and also operates a business at home. Many studies that I have read show an increase in home-based businesses. That trend should continue into the unforeseeable future as more micro-businesses cut back on expenses and retreat to their homes to save money. I want to argue this cause and advocate for a new set of laws for home based businesses.

Let me leave you with this thought: Imagine, if you may, one afternoon coming home and discovering that you have lost both your home and your livelihood at the same time. How do you think you would feel? Well, for me I know exactly how that felt. When it happened to me, I didn’t even know that I had such deep feelings inside me. But that day, when I lost my home and my business at the same time, I cried like a baby – alone.

So, do you think I have a good enough reason to keep fighting?

A pint (4 cups) of blood ...

I was at the Aliso Viejo Library and saw a “Red Cross” van pull in as I was parking. I have never given blood before but I was curious enough to inquire. The “Neighborhood Cup” had sponsored a “Blood Drive” at the community room right beside it. So, before I started my work at the library, I stopped by to ask questions. I wanted to know what I should expect to feel after giving blood. In the few minutes I met with one of the volunteers, I learned that we only have the equivalent of one day’s blood supply for the country's needs. I have yet to figure out what that means and how many blood units are optimal reserves for the 50 states. But for perspective, California has 3 days supply. That seemed critically low to me and so I returned at the end of the day to give 4 cups of blood – the first time ever. There was no dizziness or anything that was out of the ordinary afterwards.

This blog is about justice – it’s about our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And of all the human rights that we are entitled to, there is none that is more important than our right to life. When you give blood, you are really giving a gift of life.

I asked to be sent a packet to organize a blood drive and will keep our readers apprised as it develops. In the meantime, if you haven’t donated blood lately, or for that matter ever before, I urge you to do so. Log on to the Red Cross website and find a convenient location to make that life giving donation. You’ll never know whose life you save.

"Motion to Vacate" Shea Hearing ...

Lacambra vs. Shea Properties et al

I was at the Santa Ana Court yesterday to file an “Ex-Parte Motion to Vacate Judgment” on the matter of Lacambra vs. Shea Properties. A temporary judge (Robert Monarch) presided over the hearing on the 15^th of August and erroneously ruled in favor of the Defendants. On my moving papers, I argued that the Defendants had failed to prove that I had, in any manner, committed any of the following elements necessary to prove an Anti-SLAPP argument:

1. That I impeded Free Speech
2. That my case has no merits and will never prevail
3. That I used the legal process to deplete the Defendant’s resources.

I also argued that the court, on the day that the matter was heard, was guilty of rule infractions. There are certain things that the court must do when a case is being heard by a temporary judge as specified by CA Rules of Court, Rule 2.816. For the benefit of the court I remunerated all the things that the court failed to do the day of the hearing. The following verbiage is culled from my moving paper:

1. The court failed to inform the Plaintiff that a temporary judge will be hearing the matter on calendar.
2. The court failed to inform the Plaintiff that the temporary judge is a qualified member of the State Bar.
3. The court failed to provide to the Plaintiff the name of the judge.
4. The court failed to inform the Plaintiff that he had a right to have the matter heard before a judge, commissioner of court referee.
5. The court failed to display a conspicuous sign posted inside or just outside the courtroom to inform the Plaintiff of a judicial substitution.
6. The court failed to provide the Plaintiff an oral notification or notification by videotape or audiotape of the judicial substitution.
7. The court failed to give the Plaintiff an opportunity to stipulate his agreement to the judicial substitution.
8. The court failed to secure the Plaintiff’s agreement in writing expressing his consent to the substitution.

The hearing will be heard on Thursday, August 28^th. I’ll post the ruling whenever possible.

Glass No Mo' ...

Lacambra vs. Glass et al

Yesterday’s hearing had two divergent outcomes. Judge Banks concluded that facts sufficient to state a case against William Glass, CPA was not made by my pleadings. On the other hand, a Trial Date was set for April 13, 2008 leaving all of the other Defendants to this action as parties. This changes the complexion of the case entirely. On my First Amended Complaint, I used the following verbiage on my Preliminary Statement:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

An old saying goes that, “In a lawsuit, the Defendant and Plaintiff are both, by their own choosing, each pulling on the tail and the horn of a cow in the opposite direction while the lawyers are underneath milking the cow”. In the hands of an unscrupulous Certified Public Accountant, you are likely to have all of the above plus the potential ruinous occasion of having the IRS, Franchise Tax Board, your mortgage company, a slew of creditors, your mother and brothers after you as well.

At least for now, the Certified Public Accountant (William Glass) was let off the hook – temporarily. My discoveries will now continue in earnest and will include forensic accounting work. If there were improprieties that are subject to relief, I will not hesitate to add him back as a Defendant. I failed to provide hard proof to the court only because I have yet to serve him a request for production of documents, which I will now have to direct to the other parties.

My preliminary statement is proving to be prescient, however. Now, completely enmeshed in this action is an attorney who I’ve alleged to have strategized to conduct a protracted and costly action on the belief that my lack of resources will cause me to capitulate. That was a gross and an unfortunate miscalculation. There are a lot of people and institutions interested in seeing injustices righted in this world. Some have expressed a willingness to assist me in my fight. Neverthess, this is proving to be an expensive affair. Hang on to your wallets. It gives new meaning to the tagline “Got Milk?”.

Mo Tales, "MAAM" vs "MOMABAMO"

“Show up here in a week”, she said handing me a map with a big x on it. “Arrive at 9AM”, saying so with a smile. “It will be fun”. Then, she left without saying another word.

It was only until I turned the corner that morning that I realized what I was getting myself into. It was a protest rally against her own son, Mo. Everything was already set up when I got there. Banners and streamers were already unfurled and staked to the ground like the flag on the moon. One said, “YOU KILLED MY PET SNAKE, WEINER”. Another said “HONK IF YOU HATE MO”. And yet many had the same aconyms – “MOMABAMO – Mo’s Mom Against Bad Mo”.

She threw me a red shirt with the acronyms “MOMABAMO on it and said, “hurry up and pick up a placard. I expect Mo and his friends to organize a counter protest pretty soon”. As soon as she said that, there were three Black SUV’s all with limo tint that arrived across the street. A group of people all dressed in black with white acronyms that said “MAAM” on their shirts exited the SUV's. All were wearing dark sunglasses. Within moments there were streamers and banners staked to the ground on the other side of the street. Messages varied from the organization’s name “MAAM – Mo Against Angry Mom” to “HONK IF YOU HATE YOUR MOM”.

A major street that ran between the two camps set the demarcation line. On our camp were Mo’s Mom and I clad in red surrounded by banners of the same color. On the other side, there was Mo, the two sisters and thirteen men known as "Mo’s 13 Disciples" in black. It was MAAM in black and MOMABAMO in red. The first salvo came from Mo’s Mom when she brought out a loudspeaker and started yelling the words:

“You killed my pet snake, Weiner

You had your friend do an operation,

I thought he was a snake surgeon.

His only experience was dissecting a frog.

He gave my Weiner a hump like a Camel

Because you said, he was cheaper

You killed my pet snake, Weiner.”

Who killed Weiner?

Mo did!

All morning, the noise barrage was amazingly one sided. The MAAM camp were all just standing with their placards. So, all the time we were there only Mo’s Mom’s amplified voice could be heard – reverberating, taunting and annoying the other camp. Her message did not vary one bit, as if drilling it into their skulls. She must have said it a million times that everyone there will sleep that night listening to her booming words in their dreams. I could tell it was getting to their nerves. Their faces where sullen, somber and sagging, as if they had come to compete at something to only realize they were way out of their league.

Then, at 11AM, she decided it was time to leave. “Ok, time to go. No point rubbing this in anymore. They’re a bunch of amateurs. You don’t live being a mother to someone like Mo and not earn a little edge. I was able to get my message across”.

Indeed, the message was clear and crystallized by one word – AMATEURS.

(Robert's Note: My apologies for the late publication of this month's installment of the Mo Tales Series. Developments from yesterday's hearing for Lacambra vs. Glass et al inspired this entry when Judge Banks set the Trial Date for April 13, 2009. In commemoration, a new cast of characters - "Mo's 13 Disciples" is being introduced in this entry. Watch for their antics in the future.)

Ex Parte Motion not needed ...

Lacambra vs. Public Storage

I went to the Superior Court, Harbor Justice Center – Laguna Hills, CA this morning to file an “Ex-Parte Motion to Vacate Judgment” against Public Storage. A couple of days ago, I called the office of Todd Briscoe, the opposing cousel, and spoke to the attorney assigned to the case, Cynthia Poer. As is my obligation, I had to give her notice telephonically that I was appearing in front of the judge in Laguna Hills.

Initially, I had filed a complaint against Public Storage at the Unlimited Jurisdiction on Santa Ana. These are cases where damages being sought are over $25,000. In a matter of weeks, Public Storage (Maryland) filed a “Foreclosure Lien Sale” in Laguna Hills at the Limited Jurisdiction (Under $25,000). In effect, two separate cases by the same parties were on docket at different courts. Lacambra vs. Public Storage in Santa Ana and Public Storage vs. Lacambra in Laguna Hills. My motion this morning was prompted by two separate and confusing "Request for Entry of Default" served to me at two different occasions. The first one was signed by Todd Briscoe and the other one signed by Cynthia Poer. I was somewhat perturbed that a judgment was entered after a "Motion for Transfer and Consolidation" was served on them. Potentially, I thought, this was one of those sneaky lawyer tricks being pulled on me.

I was at the clerk’s counter when Cynthia arrived and she informed me that a request for default that they had requested was rejected because they failed to provide the court proof of service. So, there was no need for my motion this morning, after all. I do need to do a couple of things, however. She had served me an “Opposition to the Motion for Transfer and Consolidation”. And since she had informed me that a judgment was not entered, I told here that I was going to file a Demurrer because some of the evidence that she included in the complaint did not have live signatures of the managers who claim to have provided me with all the notices.

CA Evidence Codes 1400 & 1401 provides:

1400.  Authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law.

1401.  (a) Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence. (b) Authentication of a writing is required before secondary evidence of its content may be received in evidence.

What that essentially means is that a document that requires a signature must have one appearing in the written instrument before it can be offered as evidence. Otherwise, the document can be objected to and questioned for its authenticity. So, I told her since the hearing for the transfer and consolidation is set on the 5^th of September, the Demurrer that I will draft today will seek a hearing date after the 5^th so that the matter on the consolidation can be heard first.

Not a Homeless No More ....

If things work out as I have planned, that should have been the last night that I slept in my car. Some weeks ago, I bumped into an old Bankruptcy Attorney friend of mine, David. We exchanged numbers, but I was just heads down busy trying to get all my briefs prepared that I wasn’t able to get a hold of him until last night. The library was just about to close (5 PM) and I was barely able to shoot off an email to him. My salutations also included a short narrative about my indigence.  Expecting a reply the next day, off I went to my next destination – another place where I could sit down with my laptop to continue with my work.  

So, I went to Barnes & Noble to try to finish off a couple of legal briefs but could not find a table that was vacant – Friday night. As I was reading a book, David walked over to me confirming that he just received my email. It was a pleasant surprise to say the least and the chance meeting only got better as we continued talking. On the spot he offered me his spare bedroom.

With the offer made and accepted, I slept in my favorite spot one last night to savor the experience. David offered me a place to stay for a month. The advantages of which are enormous. I now have a place to live and work; things that have now merged seamlessly. It seems, I now live to work and to finish off the fights that I have started.

As I write this entry, I am sitting in his condo – in air-conditioned comfort watching the Men’s Field Hockey game between Australia and Netherlands on a plasma television. In 30 days, I hope to get myself back on my feet and be able to afford a place to live and even perhaps a place to work. It will be a tough slug considering all the lawsuits I have on docket but quite realistic. Nevertheless, today is a great day. Thanks to my friend, David.

War on Shea Properties not over ...

I slept very little last night rehashing the events at the Shea/Gough hearing yesterday that effectively terminated my lawsuit. I went through the events at the hearing and created what if scenarios in my head to try to pinpoint where it could have gone wrong. Then, I remembered all the events that were out of the ordinary and deviated from all the hearings I’ve participated where a temporary judge heard the matter.

The first thing I did was consult the “CA Rules of Court” (Rule 2.816) to determine whether or not there were any irregularities or mistakes made by the court during the hearing. To begin with, a temporary judge by the name of Judge Robert D. Monarch heard the matter without prior notice. The court rules are very clear about the procedures relating to hearings presided by a temporary judge.

It is the court’s responsibility to provide notice to parties when a temporary judge presides over a hearing. The notice have to be made either by posting a conspicuous notice inside or outside the court. It should be accompanied by oral notification or notification by audiotape by a court officer on the day of the hearing. Finally, a written notice must be provided to each party.

It is my recollection that neither a written notice of any form nor a verbal announcement to such effect was made in court. In all the hearings I’ve participated where there was a temporary judge, I was asked to either stipulate by signature and submit to the ruling or wait for the assigned judge to return. In this particular hearing, I did neither giving me the grounds by which to challenge the ruling.

There is a distinct possibility that Judge Monarch may have overlooked certain facts that Judge Makino would not. This case has been on docket for several months now and both parties have since submitted a number of briefs. To jump in the middle of the case without the benefit of reading all the briefs, motions and oppositions could settle a matter erroneously. So, this weekend, my job is to draft an opposition to the ruling and try to reverse the outcome. I’ll file my papers on Monday and will let our readers know what occurs.

The war has not been lost. The fight for justice continues!

Shea Case thrown out ...

I just returned from the court this morning for the hearing on the “Demurrer” and “Motion to Strike” filed by Shea Properties/Gough. Without getting a copy of the “Order” my understanding is this – 1) That the case has been terminated. 2) That there is still an opportunity to file another case because of statutes of limitations. 3) That I am to expect a proposed order from the Defendants. 


But anyway I look at this, I have lost this case – at least for now. It is definitely not the result that I wanted. But, as I have said many times - this is a first class education and I will be looking for the opportunity to learn and grow.

I was outside reading the “Tentative Ruling” when Gregory Beam (Atty Gough’s Counsel) walked up to me and remarked with a sneer, “Looks like it’s the end of the road for you”. “Lucky you”, I replied after digesting the words on the page and realizing that this particular case has ended. “Luck had nothing to do with it. Now, do you have a check for $2700?”’ he asked referring to the cost of crafting the “Motion to Strike”. I only had enough money for a bus ride back in my pocket, so I replied, “I have exactly $1.25 in my pocket, but I am not going to give it to you today”, I replied. He walked away and as he turned to enter the courtroom, he looked at me and said, “See, I told you, you should have dropped this case.”

The first meeting I had with Mr. Beam, months prior, was the embodiment of the testosterone-brimming realm of the courtroom. He called me outside rolling his pointer finger towards him like a tyrant would call a subordinate. The first words from his mouth were, “If you don’t drop this case against my client, (Attorney Gough), I will file a counter-suit against you for filing a frivolous lawsuit. He noted many laws that give lawyers immunity from prosecution. To which I replied, “even the President of the United States does not have immunity if he commits fraud”.

It was a tough case that was made even tougher because of the unexpected life changing circumstances. I filed this particular case in November of ’07. By February the next year I was homeless. By April, I was living in a car. Had I known, what the future was going to bring, I would have waited for the right situation. At least, until such time that I can have a place to live and work so I can project a competent and a fierce fight. The resources were so scarce that I haven’t even sent them a single request for production of documents. Much of my allegations hinges on the documents that they have in their possession. Those same documents are the very subject of the cover-up that I have alleged. If ever I get my hands on those documents, the whole thing will change in my favor.

Nevertheless, the first round goes to them. I’ll file another lawsuit whenever appropriate. Certain statutes of limitations have yet to expire. This time, it will be in Federal Court.

Rich & Nina (14th August 2008)

If there is one advice that I can offer you, it is this: Never drink Red Bull right after brushing your teeth. It was one of those mornings. I had just brushed my teeth and found myself at the corner 7-11 to get a Red Bull. I was still sleepy and had planned on the Red Bull to give me a much-needed kick in the pants. My sleepiness had made me forget that I had just performed my morning hygiene. The moment that yellow carbonated go-go juice hit my tongue, it was the 4^th of July in my mouth.

Next thing I remember the Niagara Falls was surgically attached to my face. Tears were just cascading down my cheeks without end. Trying to avert an embarrassment and having people think that I was crying, I rushed to the public restroom a few doors down. I noticed a crowd in the front but my vision was blurry, so I waited until I was done with the waterfalls episode.

As my vision started coming back to focus, I noticed that I was looking at the familiar face of Rich garbed in a very conservative dark blue suit with a red power tie. “Rich”, I called out. And in a voice reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, he shook my hands and said, “Well, hello, fellow American, it is nice that you can join us today in support of the many hard-working employees of 7-11 who are, on a daily basis, subjected to the humiliation of having their customers talk to them with an Indian accent. If you notice, not everyone who works for 7-11 is of Indian ancestry and they are not all named Singh. We are here today, trying to expose these hooligan acts of humiliation to prevent it from happening in the future”.

“Dude”, I said. “It’s me, can you lose your suave sophisticated voice? I just drank Red Bull after brushing my teeth. I’m dying here.” He took me by the arm around the corner where nobody can see us and loosened his tie. “Man, am I glad to see you”, he said in his usual shrill voice. “I don’t know what to do anymore, I think of Nina day and night and this is what I came up with to try to win her heart. You know, I want to make her feel that a future with me will be a great life and so I decided to embark on a political career to become the President of these United States”. There was a long pregnant pause lasting several long seconds as it took a few moments for his words to sink in.

Then, he said “Look at my banners”, he said while pointing at the large banners hanging. “The Republicans came up with - If you want to be rich, vote Republican Party. To counter that, the Democratic Party came up with - If you want to be rich like a Republican, vote Democrat. It was so confusing, so I simplified the whole thing and came up with “If you wanna be rich, vote for Rich. It’s got a real nice ring to it, don’t you think?”

“I started my campaign here because I love 7-11”, he continued. “It’s the only place I know where donuts can be had in the morning or if you wish at 10PM at night. All the other donut shops are already closed by then. Here, have a half a dozen donuts, putting one very soft piece in my mouth so I can’t speak.”

“Ok”, he said. “I have got to go but join me at the local 99 Market next week where we will expose that not all kitchens in Chinese restaurants are manned by Chinese cooks from Mainland China but in actuality by Mexicans. The campaign will be called “Chinese Food made for Americans by Mexicans”. This will also prove that not everything is made in China. It’s more like Made in the USA by Mexicans. I think you’ll like it. Supporters who arrive will be treated with delectable egg rolls the size of burritos. You have got to try it – promise me you’ll be there”, he said. I replied with a nod and off he went back to his adoring supporters – shaking hands, smiling and walking like a serious contender.

TO BE CONTINUED  

A Federal Case ...

I’ve been looking for the right case to crossover to the Federal Courts. It seems I was handed the opportunity to do just that. Just today in the opposition papers served to me by Susan Angell, my brother’s attorney, she included a letter from the lawyers of First Team Realty stating that they did not receive the “First Amended Complaint” and certain other documents. In it, Attorney Angell also claims that she did not receive papers that were mailed to her. Sounds suspiciously like another hare brained scheme to me – a connivance.

It so happens that the person who signed my “Proof of Service” is intimately knowledgeable of the court system and is actually trying two cases in the Federal Court representing himself – one against the Sheriff’s Department and another against the State of California and the State Bar Association. As soon as I saw him (Felix), we had a little meeting and I inquired about putting together a case against these attorneys for violating my civil rights. With a smile, he pointed out that they are indeed ministers of the court and are subject of Federal Laws as a matter of jurisdiction.

So, there we have it, my first case in the Federal Courts will be against attorneys. From what I have observed, there are differences in the procedures of the respective courts. It has always been said that the Federal Courts have more resources and a better system. However, I hear that the states pattern their rules after the Federal System but there are differences nonetheless. One example, for instance, in the State Courts a “Proof of Service” has to be signed by a person other than parties to the lawsuit. In Federal Courts, the person representing himself or herself can sign an attestation saying that the papers were mailed. Another difference is, in the Federal Court, the parties are allowed to forego a transcribed deposition and just take a videotape of the deposition. I have already opted to do that because I haven’t the money for a court reporter. I can’t wait to put their faces on my videocam and flash their mugs on "YouTube" while answering questions that I have designed specifically to uncover their lies. Off course, they will fight tooth and nail to seal that and prevent it from getting published. But that makes it an interesting “First Amendment Argument”. If they have yet to figure out that I have got some gumption, they have got to pay attention.

I call this a first class education, baby!

A Psychological Test?

“Nice touch counselor - on trying to have the judge do a psych test on me”, I told Susan Angell, my brother’s attorney, as we entered the courtroom. I had filed an Ex-Parte Motion to try to get Judge Banks to give me standing on the property that my brother and I are disputing about. On her reply, she opposed the motion and asked that I have a psychological test to evaluate my capacity to represent myself. Naturally, that was denied.

This matter came in front of Judge Banks after I discovered that a “Notice of Default” had been filed on the property, which means that it is the process of foreclosure. The original dispute is based on property rights. My brother claims that I was merely a renter. I claim that I had an oral agreement with him giving me standing as a partner. My claim is supported by cancelled checks that showed I paid for the mortgage, property taxes, association fees, landscaping, hardscaping and other improvements – things that only a homeowner will pay.

The hearing was at 8:45AM at Department C-6. Going in, I knew that I had a very slim chance of getting the judge to rule in my favor because to do so may encroach on the legal rights of the lien holder (Countrywide Home Loans). It was a desperate attempt because a foreclosure action is already in full swing and time is running out. The answer from Judge Banks was “the motion is denied”.

The ruling was certainly a setback but not entirely unexpected. I had to eliminate that option as I’ve been hesitating filing suit against Countrywide Home Loans because of the resources that I will have to marshal. My war chest is down to a bare bones minimum and related expenses usually extracts from my other needs. But the decision was inevitable. I have to file a case against Countrywide Home Loans – something I wish I didn’t have to do.

There were a couple of things I discovered that allows me to file claim against Countrywide Home Loans. First, I came into possession of an email that repeats a statement from Countrywide Home Loans to the effect that I exercised predatory lending practices on a particular loan that is now a subject to dispute. What they failed to state was that the loan that they were referring to was brokered to Countrywide Home Loans and was duly underwritten and funded by their wholesale division. Because of these statements, I was deprived a commission on a deal I had co-originated with First Team Realty.

So, by next week, I will petition the court to add Countrywide Home Loans as a Defendant together with First Team Realty. 

No Shorts in Court ...

I worked through the latter part of last week to get a couple of motions prepared for this Monday. The day started with a trip to Saint Timothy’s Catholic Church to get my copies done. The person who was supposed to do the copying for me, Diane, went on a 2-week vacation. Although the lady who was left taking care of the office knew of our arrangement, she was not as receptive to my needs as Diane. She was alone at the busy office and was multi-tasking. Because of how busy she was, she asked if I could return the next day. If I didn’t explain to her the urgency of my situation, she would not have done the copies for me.

Finally, with copies at hand, I hopped on the 83 Bus to Santa Ana and found my way to the Superior Court. Normally, the clerks downstairs are able to call the courtroom to reserve a court date. I needed two court dates. First, for an “Ex-Parte Motion for Decalrative Relief”. Second, for a “Motion for Sanctions and Disqualify Counsel”. Apparently, there were some changes that were made and a prior approval from the Courtroom Clerk was needed. So, I was sent upstairs to get the reservations for the hearing. Unfortunate, because of the way the windows were designed the File Clerk did not see that I was wearing shorts. Unaware of the “No Shorts in the Courtroom” Rule, I rushed upstairs without even thinking. I only had shorts, a t-shirt and my Merrell Hiking Boots on because of the heat. Plus, I really hadn’t planned on going in a courtroom.

Judge Banks was in a middle of a hearing when I walked in. I knew that a nod from the Bailiff is always a good idea when approaching the bench. So, I stood a few seconds by the doorway and motioned the Bailiff permission to approach him. He said, yes but I could tell that he was perturbed. The moment I got to within earshot, he said “you can’t enter a courtroom with shorts on”. After explaining to him what I was trying to do, he told me to just have the Clerk downstairs call upstairs for the reservations.

Time was running out for me. “Ex-Parte Motions” have a deadline of 3PM so the moving party can have the matter heard the next day. By the time I got downstairs it was already 3:08PM. I got the same lady who helped me earlier and so I explained my situation. In a stern voice, she said “Well, you’ll have to call the courtroom yourself”. That was when, I said “Miss, this is not the first time that I have ever done this – let’s get your Manager over here”. A few minutes elapsed until the Manager showed up with my hearing dates and times. But before she handed the documents to me, she said – “this will be the last time that I will do this ok?”.

To sum up the story, I will face my favorite opposition counsel – Attorney Angell – on the 13^th of August for the “Ex-Parte Motion for Declarative Relief” and once again on the 12^th of September for the “Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Disqualify Counsel”.

The lesson is: You have got to just keep rolling with the punches and never ever give up. Be a damn scrapper if you want to get anything in life.

Let’s see how this here thing rolls …

Yestradamus 080708

From one round ocean west emerges the newborn

A hand of fleur and a hand with the gift of the gods

Caninus and Califus shall a jubilant heart reveal

A union pure for many shall a promise bestow

I had just sold a house before the real estate crash and was flushed with a lot of cash. Something was in the air that summer that I had a real bad itch to see Elvis. Obviously, I couldn’t let my wife know that I was planning a trip to Las Vegas so I brought my one-year-old baby boy for a little bonding – he was also my cover. Never in a million years could she have guessed where I went. When she asked me to see the Disneyland pictures, I told her that the film got messed up.

It was an uneventful weekend until we were already heading back on the 15 Freeway. I was really getting into the groove because Willie Nelson was on the radio singing, “On the road again”. Then, without warning I heard a loud commotion in the back. I thought my son had only cut the cheese but it turned out to be the real McCoy.

In the “City of Sin” there can be no bigger sin than running out of diapers for your infant child while in a car driving down the hot and steamy 15 Freeway. It was a real big mess. The car was engulfed with a putrid smell that even with the windows open, it was still enough to mangle your nostrils. For several miles, until I couldn’t keep it up any longer, I was driving on the freeway with my head outside of the car like Jim Carey in Ace Ventura.

While feeling the strong desert wind on my face, I remembered that I had a AAA Card and immediately pulled over. At first I tried getting them to bring me some diapers but they said they couldn’t do it – it wasn’t a car part. So, finally, I pretended that my car had broken down and parked it under the shade of a bridge. This is where Yestradamus’ word “bestow” comes into play. I had the car “towed” to the nearest supermarket. I could only handle the smell for so long until I had to breath again.

When he finally got there, the Tow-Truck Driver decided it was safer to leave my son in my car while we towed it because he said he had an allergic condition and might crash the rig if he had to put up with the smell. So, while I was riding shotgun in the rig, my son was riding behind in tow and having a hell of a time. At a young age he already took a liking to the dangerous sensations of speed.

Anyways, the quatrain also used the words “fleur”, “gift of the gods”, “Caninus and Califus” and “union”. I have no idea what the Yestradamus was drinking when he wrote those words but I have a feeling he was just completely ripped because I haven’t a clue. So, I guess I’ll have to get drunk to approximate what he was feeling and maybe get an insight. Once again, l’ll have to bring my baby boy out for some quality bonding at a friendly neighborhood bar. I’ll let the readers know what we, the boys, discover.

Analyst 147X

Scorched Earth Tactic

Lacambra vs. Glass et al

I neglected to blog about the last hearing on Lacambra vs. Glass (July 28^th) where I was responding to Demurrers and a Motion for Sanctions. The hearing was re-scheduled for the 22nd of August because Judge Banks was absent. Parties are given an option to either reschedule or stipulate to having the case heard by a Temporary Judge. Because of what was at stake, I opted to wait until Judge Banks got back. I’ve since concluded that Judge Banks has a good grasp of the case and will likely not miss facts that are material and altogether prevent an error in ruling.

A number of motions and pleadings are actually being prepared for this case at the moment and will be filed by next week. I just discovered that my brother Wilbert had actually stopped paying on the house now subject to controversy, despite having a renter living in the house. Having it foreclosed would forever deprive me of the opportunity to re-assert my ownership rights. If my brother is willing to take that “Scorched Earth Tactic”, I’ll have to take drastic measures and go after all their assets – a strategy that I have thus far resisted. In a week I will have the following papers served on them:

1. Lis Pendens (Notice of Pending Action)
   
2. Leave to add Lacambra Inc. as Defendant
   
3. Motion for Declarative Relief
   
4. Injunctive Order against Countrywide Home Loans
   
5. Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Angell)
   
6. Motion for Sanctions against Counsel (Angell)

This case is just getting more and more interesting. If only because the defense is not being conducted well. Part of an attorney’s job is to keep a client out of court. If that could not be achieved, a client must be completely apprised of all the liabilities - potential or contingent. If my brother’s attorney did not advise him that a lawsuit can be filed against his company, she is arguably guilty of negligence. It should have been glaringly obvious because payments were made to the corporation. Including the company in the lawsuit increases the asset base to which a judgment can be attached.

Corporations offer protection to shareholders in so far as liabilities are limited to the aggregate value of the corporate assets. In other words, if a corporation is sued and loses a case, judgments can only be attached to corporate assets. Exceptions are made when shareholder(s) co-mingle funds with the company and use corporate assets like a personal piggy bank. In such cases, the liability extends to all assets owned by the violating shareholder. That is called “piercing the corporate veil”.

Roman - Rest In Peace

I had breakfast with my 16-year-old daughter, Ashley, today. And that was when she broke the very sad news to me. A dear family friend, a nice 23-year-old gentleman by the name of Roman had recently died in a drowning accident while swimming in a lake in California. The information about the incident is sketchy at best. But from what I’ve gathered his body hasn’t been found. There were efforts to recover his body but the search operation was called off because of a boat race that was scheduled.

I have never heard anything so outrageous in my entire life; it's revolting. Had it been any of the racer’s body missing in the lake, they would have moved heaven and earth to find it and give the family a semblance of peace. I’m going to try to get to the bottom of this whole thing. And if there is even a smidgen of wrongdoing, some people will have to answer to this. I want to know: Who was responsible for calling off the search effort and why was it called off too soon?

Don't SLAPP me ...

Lacambra vs. Shea Properties et al

I spent most of the weekend responding to a “Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP)” served on me by the counsel for Gary J. Gouch, Esq. the lawyer for Shea Properties at the time of the controversy. I had included him as a Defendant despite all the laws that protect attorneys from lawsuits. This was one of the consequences.

SLAAP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation". The Anti-SLAPP legislation was the result of a surge of meritless lawsuits filed against individuals and companies by Plaintiffs whose only goal was anything but to prevail in court. Mostly used to fight someone who is opposing a political position, it’s a proverbial David and Goliath battle where Goliath is using money to bring an opposition to comply with their designs. It’s like someone saying – “If you don't do what I say, I will slap you with a lawsuit and make you poor beyond belief”.

Case law defined a SLAPP lawsuit in this manner:

Characteristically, the SLAPP suit lacks merit; it will achieve its objective if it depletes defendant’s resources or energy. The aim is not to win the lawsuit but to detract the defendant from his or her objective, which is adverse to the plaintiff (Citation) (Church Scientology v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal App. 4^th 628, 645, 49 Cal. Rprtr. 2d 620 (2d Dist. 1996) (disapproved of by, Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause Inc., 29 Cal. 4^th 53, 134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 507, 52 P.3d 685 (2002) (Church of Scientology).) Dowling v. Zimmerman, 85 Cal. App. 4^th 1400 1414, 103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 174 (4^th Dist. 2001)

The SLAAP Lawsuit has three main characteristics and any one may be present for a SLAPP Lawsuit to exist:

1. The lawsuit stifles Free Speech
   
2. The Lawsuit has no merit and have very little probability of winning.
   
3. The lawsuit’s primary cause is to deplete the Defendant’s resources and energy.

So, when I started writing my opposition, I was wearing a huge smile. I was being portrayed as someone who is using the courts and the insanely prohibitive cost of litigation to exact revenge. My opposition paper was a compendium of why, of all the people on this live earth, I should be labeled the cash-flushed Goliath with a cadre of attorneys who do my bidding. In fact, that scenario could not be further from the truth. I represent myself precisely because I cannot afford an attorney. As it stands, I am too busy to even ponder such a sophisticated and expensive scheme. 


A not too obvious, yet effective motive for filing this motion is to shorten the duration of discovery. One element of the Anti-SLAPP Statute is that it suspends all discovery when it is filed. Discovery is the block of work before trial when lawyers seek relevant information about the case. This is when lawyers can demand from other parties, witnesses and other sources documents; information; answers to questions under oath; petition the court to enforce discovery rights; and ask written admissions. 


Our trial is already set for the 10th of November and anything to lessen the discovery period shifts the advantage to the defense. My opposition in this particular case (Robert Cardwell and Gregory Beam) are highly skilled and seasoned professionals worthy of my grudging respect. They understand the subtleties of the law and know what they are doing.

Ecclesiastic Bonanza

August 1^st was a fantastic day. It was a Friday and a good start for the month. In the morning I met with church leaders at the Saint Timothy Catholic Church in Laguna Niguel. The meeting lasted no more than 15 minutes and when I walked out of the conference room, it felt like a huge weight was taken off my shoulders. For the last few days, I was struggling with finding a reliable source for my copies. I made an informal agreement with the Manager at the Public Law Center in Santa Ana, but the proximity to where I usually do my work was a factor why I was looking for other sources.

I met with Gary and Gene, who were both volunteers at St. Timothy’s and explained my situation. There were a number of things that I included on my list. Most were items meant to help me with all the lawsuits that I have. But of all that I needed, the most daunting was being able to make copies to serve moving papers to my opposition. When I left, I was promised access to copies with envelopes and postage included. And it was confirmed as I was leaving when I asked Diane if it were true and with a nod she did. I spent most of the morning just feeling cheery inside - as if I had won a small battle in a big war. It was the most remarkable thing that I have experienced in a long while. There was a feeling that reinforcements had finally arrived.

What that all meant was that I am now able to properly confront my opposition’s “Strategy by Attrition’ and “Tactical Papering” with a lessened sense of distress. For I am now in a partnership with God and my opposition had better know that I am dangerous!