Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • 09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #8 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p307-318

    Загружено:

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    28 просмотров12 страниц
    Executive Summary Los Angles, July 15 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against James A Richman – Justice of California Court of Appeal, First District, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, John A Clarke – Clerk, and others of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for public corruption and deprivation of rights, relative to their conduct in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286). The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to conduct pretense litigation in the case of Sturgeon v Los Angeles County, where Justice Richman presided with no authority at all and where judgments were falsely represented as entered by him in the case. · Court records showed that Justice Richman routinely referred to himself as presiding in the case as “judge by assignment”. However, no Assignment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law. · Court records further showed that the Los Angeles Superior Court, a party to the same litigation, routinely referred to Justice James A Richman as a presiding “by reference” in the case. However, no Appointment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law for a Referee. · Plaintiff’s counsel referred to Justice James Richman as “designated” to preside in the case. However, no designation record was ever found in the case, either. The complaint noted that no judgment was ever entered in the case, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. However, “not official” court records, published online by the court, falsely represented judgments by James A Richman in the case - in favor of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Superior Court and against Plaintiff Sturgeon. Requests, which were forwarded to Justice Richman, to clarify the legal foundation for his authority to preside in the case, were left unanswered. In addition, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke were alleged in the complaint as engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights relative to denial of access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) and other records in the case. The complaint alleged that through such conduct the Clerk and Presiding Judge continue to cover-up the fraudulent nature of the litigation in the case. The case of Sturgeon v LA County held the highest public policy significance, since it pertained to the taking of “not permitted” payments by Los Angeles County judges, which were called by media “bribes”. Therefore, the complaint alleged that through such conduct, the named accused conspired to deprive all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings in years to come. Conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Justice system was described already in 2001 by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, as “conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states…”, and the Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended already in 2006 external investigation of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Regardless, the April 2010 report, filed by Human Rights Alert with the United Nations, documented ongoing refusal of senior officers of the US Department of Justice to enforce the law in Los Angles County, California, and to accord equal protection to its 10 million residents. The complaint was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010. Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the just

    Оригинальное название

    09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #8- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p307-318

    Авторское право

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Доступные форматы

    PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Executive Summary Los Angles, July 15 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against James A Richman – Justice of California Court of Appeal, First District, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, John A Clarke – Clerk, and others of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for public corruption and deprivation of rights, relative to their conduct in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286). The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to conduct pretense litigation in the case of Sturgeon v Los Angeles County, where Justice Richman presided with no authority at all and where judgments were falsely represented as entered by him in the case. · Court records showed that Justice Richman routinely referred to himself as presiding in the case as “judge by assignment”. However, no Assignment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law. · Court records further showed that the Los Angeles Superior Court, a party to the same litigation, routinely referred to Justice James A Richman as a presiding “by reference” in the case. However, no Appointment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law for a Referee. · Plaintiff’s counsel referred to Justice James Richman as “designated” to preside in the case. However, no designation record was ever found in the case, either. The complaint noted that no judgment was ever entered in the case, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. However, “not official” court records, published online by the court, falsely represented judgments by James A Richman in the case - in favor of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Superior Court and against Plaintiff Sturgeon. Requests, which were forwarded to Justice Richman, to clarify the legal foundation for his authority to preside in the case, were left unanswered. In addition, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke were alleged in the complaint as engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights relative to denial of access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) and other records in the case. The complaint alleged that through such conduct the Clerk and Presiding Judge continue to cover-up the fraudulent nature of the litigation in the case. The case of Sturgeon v LA County held the highest public policy significance, since it pertained to the taking of “not permitted” payments by Los Angeles County judges, which were called by media “bribes”. Therefore, the complaint alleged that through such conduct, the named accused conspired to deprive all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings in years to come. Conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Justice system was described already in 2001 by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, as “conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states…”, and the Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended already in 2006 external investigation of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Regardless, the April 2010 report, filed by Human Rights Alert with the United Nations, documented ongoing refusal of senior officers of the US Department of Justice to enforce the law in Los Angles County, California, and to accord equal protection to its 10 million residents. The complaint was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010. Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the just

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    28 просмотров12 страниц

    09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #8 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p307-318

    Загружено:

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    Executive Summary Los Angles, July 15 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against James A Richman – Justice of California Court of Appeal, First District, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, John A Clarke – Clerk, and others of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for public corruption and deprivation of rights, relative to their conduct in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286). The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to conduct pretense litigation in the case of Sturgeon v Los Angeles County, where Justice Richman presided with no authority at all and where judgments were falsely represented as entered by him in the case. · Court records showed that Justice Richman routinely referred to himself as presiding in the case as “judge by assignment”. However, no Assignment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law. · Court records further showed that the Los Angeles Superior Court, a party to the same litigation, routinely referred to Justice James A Richman as a presiding “by reference” in the case. However, no Appointment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law for a Referee. · Plaintiff’s counsel referred to Justice James Richman as “designated” to preside in the case. However, no designation record was ever found in the case, either. The complaint noted that no judgment was ever entered in the case, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. However, “not official” court records, published online by the court, falsely represented judgments by James A Richman in the case - in favor of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Superior Court and against Plaintiff Sturgeon. Requests, which were forwarded to Justice Richman, to clarify the legal foundation for his authority to preside in the case, were left unanswered. In addition, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke were alleged in the complaint as engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights relative to denial of access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) and other records in the case. The complaint alleged that through such conduct the Clerk and Presiding Judge continue to cover-up the fraudulent nature of the litigation in the case. The case of Sturgeon v LA County held the highest public policy significance, since it pertained to the taking of “not permitted” payments by Los Angeles County judges, which were called by media “bribes”. Therefore, the complaint alleged that through such conduct, the named accused conspired to deprive all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings in years to come. Conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Justice system was described already in 2001 by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, as “conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states…”, and the Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended already in 2006 external investigation of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Regardless, the April 2010 report, filed by Human Rights Alert with the United Nations, documented ongoing refusal of senior officers of the US Department of Justice to enforce the law in Los Angles County, California, and to accord equal protection to its 10 million residents. The complaint was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010. Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the just

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 12

    1

    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    EXHIBIT 4-f
    28

    INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE


    Case No. BC351286
    307 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p307/679
    Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
    Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750

    00-00-00-
    09-08-07 Exhibit 4-f: August 21, 2007 Minute Order – Samaan’s Ex Parte Application for Entry
    of Judgment
    The minute order of August 21, 2007 is important for two
    reasons:

    1) The Proceeding of August 21, 2007 was a key


    proceeding in Judge Connor attempts to deceive
    relative to the entry of judgment. Dr Zernik had
    just engaged a new attorney, Ed Hoffman. However,
    following the short appearance on August 21, 2007, he
    informed Dr Zernik that he was threatened by Judge
    Connor, and also later provided Dr Zernik with
    declaration that the transcript for the proceeding of
    Aug 21, 2007 was adulterated.

    Notice that during the ex parte appearance "for entry of


    judgment" Judge Connor refused to state whether or not
    the Judgment was entered. But then she added on a
    separate page: "Later". The significance was that if
    you did not have access to court file, you would never
    know the "Later" part.

    2) This minute order is the best evidence for the fraud


    regarding dating the minute orders in Sustain. I
    refused to discuss the matter with Keshavarzi without
    the records. And then surprisingly, on August 29, 2007
    I received by mail the minute order, dated August 21,
    2007, with endorsement by a clerk whose name nobody
    ever heard, also stating that it was mailed on August
    21, 2007, However, the mail stamp states August 28,
    2007. August 28, 2007 is also the date that appears
    on the copy of the minute order in Sustain.

    Att Hoffman told me on August 21, 2007, shortly after the


    meeting that Judge Connor referred to me in the proceeding
    on that day as “a Pest”, and that she said: "He is a pest,
    and I treat him accordingly".

    On the morning of August 21, 2007 we filed together a


    motion for reconsideration, which he thought was very
    strong. After meeting Judge Connor he demanded to withdraw
    any paper bearing his name. He said he was concerned that
    she would retaliate against his license. That was the end
    of his engagement.
    The Minute Order claims that the judgment was served in
    open court, but in November 9, 2007, Att Keshavarzi denied
    that he was ever served with the judgment.
    In any event, this minute order cannot be deemed a valid
    court record, since there is no endorsement by clerk.

    308 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p308/679


    ~. 1'1I4R- og -2)-0:,

    SUPERIOR COU~ OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY'<:fF LOS ANGELES

    DATE­ 08/21/07 II DEPT. WEI

    HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE L. ADORNATO DEPUTY CLERK

    HQNQRi\.BLE leDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR


    #11
    B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR# 5714 RepOHer

    8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff


    Counsel MOE KESHAVARZI (X)
    NIVIE SAMAAN
    VS Defendant EDWARD A. HOFFMAN (Xl
    JOSEPH ZERNIK Counsel

    CCP 170.~ - JUDGE NEIDQRF

    NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

    PLAINTIFF'S (NIVIE SAMAAN) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR


    ENTRY OF JUDGMENT;
    DEFENDANT'S (JOSEPH ZERNIK) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
    THE COURT TO ISSUE FULL AND COMPLETE EVIDENTIARY
    RULING FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    HEARD AUGUST 9, 2007, TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR
    REVIEW PRIOR TO ENTERING JUDGMENT, AND JOINT
    STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER;

    Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Application For Entry of Judgment


    is called for hearing and granted.
    The court orders judgment filed today.
    Defendant's above captioned Ex Parte Application is
    called for hearing and denied. All full and complete
    rulings on evidentiary objections have been placed
    in the court record as of August 9, 2007.
    Final Status Conference remains set for August 30,
    2007 at 8:30 a.m. in Department WEI. A Status
    Conference regardlng appointment of referee to assist
    with escrow is to be heard the same date.
    Parties are to submit proposed names of agreed upon
    referees at the next hearing.

    Notice is waived.
    MINUTES ENTERED
    Page 1 of 3 DEPT. WEI 08/21/07
    COUNTY CLERK

    309 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p309/679


    ~PERIOR COU~ COUNTY~F AN:EL~S
    • h

    OF CALIFORNIA. LOS

    DATE 08/21/07 DEPT. WEI

    HOI\ORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE L. ADORNATO DEPUTY CLERK

    HO~ORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MOI\'ITOR


    #11
    B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR# 5714 Report~r

    8: 30 am SC087400 Plaintiff
    Counsel MOE KESHAVARZI (X)
    NIVIE SAMAAN
    VS Defendam EDWARD A. HOFFMAN (X)
    JOSEPH ZERNIK Counsel

    CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF


    NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS,

    Later:

    The Court vacates its previous order regarding

    Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Application for Entry of

    Judgment as it is moot.
    A review of the court file indicates that the Judgment
    was signed and filed on August 9, 2007.
    The clerk is to send notice.
    CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/
    NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
    I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the
    above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not
    a party to the cause herein, and that this date I
    served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of
    8-21-07 upon each party or counsel named below by
    depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
    in Santa Monica, California, one copy of the
    original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope
    for each, addressed as shown below with the postage
    thereon fully prepaid.
    Date: August 21, 2007
    John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk

    MINUTES ENTERED
    Page 2 of 3 DEPT. WEI 08/21/07
    COUNTY CLERK

    310 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p310/679


    ~ ~~ 10...- ,110.0 ~?Q,~

    ~~
    ""~ tt"
    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
    dF

    nATE 08/21/07 DEPT. WEI

    HOI\QRABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNDR JUDGE L. ADORNATO DEPUTY CLERK

    HOKORABLE :UDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONlC RECORD1NG ~~O"NITOR


    #11
    B. VARGAS CA OtPUI}' Sheriff K. CALL CSR# 5714 Repnnu
    ===c=== = === =~~" ~~~~ " ===~===
    8:30 am SC087400 Plaintitf
    CJunsel MOE KESHAVl'.RZI (Xl
    NIVIE SAMAA1:'r
    vs Dtfemlam EDWARD A. EOFFMAliJ (Xl
    JOSEFH ZERNIK Coullsd

    ccp 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF


    NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS,

    By:

    MOE KESHAVARZI
    333 SOUTH HOPE S~REETJ 48TH FLOOR
    LOS A..'lGELES, CA 900-/1

    JOSEPH ZERNIK
    320 S. PECK AVENUE
    / BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212

    IJMINuTES ENTERED
    Page 3 of 3 DEPT. WEI 08/21/07
    COUNTY CLERK

    311 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p311/679


    312 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p312/679
    313 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p313/679
    314 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p314/679
    CASE NO. 6C bY:-¥ttrO TITLE 519 t'V\1J111V V~
    0#
    PAYMENT
    _ EXECUTIVE OFFICER I CLERK WORK INVOICE
    COMPLETED BY: OWAITING OMAIL OWILL CALL CHECK SERIAL NO.
    MONEY
    OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    ORDER TAKEN BY: ORDER 0#---- 889314
    CASHIER: Date 1" -7::5- ()~ CASH o EXEMPT o COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
    .I'lI~['-
    DATE COPIES CERT I# Pgs.1 Dup.
    Register Page
    Dissolution
    Support Order
    Complaint I Answer
    Judgments
    Dismissal .iJJ.~"
    Petition I Response ,)
    Will
    Letters
    r.... ,)E~t·~:
    Decree
    Exhibits ASH:
    Records Search CHMW.....
    Minute Order \.,k~Ij: 7.uO
    ·VtIr ~/M:J If.
    Order
    Order
    Entire File

    ORDERG
    JUL 28 :_ ~,
    DISMISSAL / WRITS I JUDGMENTS
    I AP I

    =--m=G
    NO. FEE NO.
    WRIT NO RECORD SEARCH
    ~~ ~~vtii2
    =~
    ABSTRACTS NAME
    JUDGMENTS
    ADDRESS .,.
    TOTA T

    THIS IS NOT A RECEIPT 1-,02,-61- - ~- ~Y157


    RETAIN THIS INVOICE PLUS YOUR wtsl jVD4~-li10~
    CASH R .iISTER RECEIPT FOR A l 76R170D80 (REV. 5/92)
    COMPLETE RECORD OF THIS TRANSACTION CUSTOt.ER copy

    315 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p315/679


    ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p316/679 316
    00'L1 : <J~,)
    :3SNtlH:J " 11-1111 !-;n:l
    1:1101
    :(BhI3J3~
    00' L 1$ : H:3i.,\tfd
    811:~ .t I _ I-
    ze: II : I
    Y7~ 1,1 : 1 I I,
    ::Jlt1S
    . l .' . .'i1J
    ~.-;
    ;006~Z! r~:)(:I\;I : :f d I3:J:kl ·........\ V)/\iv ..
    vH 8 P £(1: ~ 1 80/ ::;2,,' LO :f]Itld 31l:;t<J
    TLLW ...
    ~!n
    :;I;~ ,~ II -'Hi
    31006 \;I:) 8313: M ~:cn
    ,',Ii rj),IO :'0 -i'~III!I~ I
    III ·OO~ • S 11 'N l;':'~
    .,.~
    --~ S3A!H~~~ _·:·S·~·
    ,'1006 J 'S31]~~!~ JO,
    l M~ Il]HIS IlilJiH8 W
    8JJ:JijJ- dnS Hl
    ------lJr
    TRAN ~l<~1,{'~~~~QE~&2t7
    PA~KA SE(lKGE S
    IN 1-)1-0 PLk
    r ._ ·1i
    o
    -

    1 U'IZ07
    ._--~-r 'f'.~

    ' ',

    ·--~I'
    At\orne y'

    ,I f'AKKA fKAN(~S H tr7 (/1 it, t ?~):J() (c '4- 5t>e J.('


    --.-----. --:1
    =o=~_~=
    . . _ .~=~==~
    .
    ~_~- , I +\"Nn.~
    ~-'-~-::=;-~-
    I r..~ruIU04 "CI~N - - - - - _.,--~--
    ~~.Q.h-~!J ~Jti . _______----=0
    CODE __
    •
    loJJOJl. _

    --~I"--1'-jJUfU1~L2Lf~J~;2{)f7

    .- -:rl~tJl
    lli"ORIHI

    ~:~~t1: ,-"~:,~",:,"",~,, ;,>,P.

    -~'-\ -:,~r7-n::,rRtQ FO-RD"T-Sl~T~ J,,'-


    :,;"
    11v!:'lrlc:'~11i. PLK-'l:"J (U
    ",",
    flllv

    ":,,;, I
    0'

    ';.[',1 I",ccpr
    .

    .-C.__.Flu..a----. - -
    =~:~~=----. ~1 '~lr~j~o-
    ------ ------j;--T--r--­
    --;:-~ I

    n_~ :~i-~F:~t~-{E--k~f~2(Ff/(~Z(Z L-~~'~ d.I~,>~~~fJ-- >~~-_~r(~~f~~Iz!:~


    =- i-~ : 7 §~d,:tJc;(sl!:s-!· , LJCstL(r.: '/' t -. ,,,Jeep, n -2 I j[jg¢
    ~ .<..:lLL~ {{i! ( ! __ -----r
    _~ ~ I

    -r,
    ---i:i-;;
    llL--­
    I :..J1lfC-l \d "I
    NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGI,IENT
    CERTIFICATE 0, MAiliNG rILE:D
    __ _
    _ __ _ _ _
    I

    I]:
    , i
    ____ ~_=_~-Cf-F '1 I%-:----_=~---_=----- -jU~~1U~T.:J2I~WT.: i...J0:"-I';._~J7 _=-==-_ --~ '-;-1-­
    , • "'- 1-" D£CLARA~'-'" F" '"'~",'ULT
    --- --------t-i-,------- ORt:JNcoNrE~TED~DISSOLuTION ----,-­
    _._-.-~; "-~~~~~--u--()l4-'-E.t:~i~'{ D (;,'Ii((I-(G~-;·, ~-'-jlJ.1S1L14(~--- ~_~:__
    _ _ _. '- 7! (W, 'lOi) . /L.-V-~-f~(...d...."-~~~";I~Ll~L~-i-'-4.~)-J.---- ._. ~~ I

    --K;! C-J~!
    ~=--~~i1-'--4> I;:{ i~!
    . ,~/I ~ '1'.;
    v-~---'T ;:--/1--;:'--: ---;t.!. -1::t--r-7~~·-·LL,'
    _~ j,)' I I

    -~- .-~j--- . _'tl_. - - _u_ ·~-!i--I--i-!- ­


    --- - j
    --r

    _-----..':_ ,~lUd_i~Lt~iLec~~·z i: ~-r-


    -+~Jrz:fr';¥i,7:~~(~ ~~~"'--=-}:~ZT)=E+-!
    --..-1­
    - , t+ I ClIln'R 10 AI I t . II
    .- '__~~7---...u~NjWllifiL...tL--------
    - < : - -... -- ~_~-~! _
    ~-I··--···Dl3T.ICj.

    __-_-----.-­ -1 Ii --+1-­
    _____ I OfPL__ r I': :

    -~ ~ .. -r-- ~ :=;::~:OH~_- --=-=~~-~-=--.--.

    --
    10k

    r-r
    I ----r-
    -r---- ---- . . --- -
    Affit"t1lll3iJlIlWTUl'!----------· .-.-.----

    ~---- --- u
    -----.- ...- - - - - - - - , ­

    --rr---+l-+

    II
    ,
    r±t=
    I I I
    -----~=___ -Ji--.!' i----+-­

    I '! SuMMS
    ORIGINAl
    \~'D
    PUBLICATION OF SUM"",0~S
    I ktG ...... C-,ll:l;(
    :lUAU,l f-Il~:';
    IOCf .. :.Jl10N
    _COMP II LA'AUlTEN1RYON COMP av
    ______.....1 ,____ APPl FOR FILED ..4 t I 0.: ByelER'; I CDUIIT F!lEw

    •
    317 ,
    - - - - - - - 1i
    ft~5r'~
    DIW,~,.l"L
    I
    I
    ,I 'I[)(~M~NT <",nCJ<:r'
    II ATTACHMENTS
    II- NOTlaOf & EXHIBITS p317/679
    "
    .. .
    .
    .
    i
    ,
    t"'­ ~( ( \

    II
    e e JI) b

    Grimm & Scllol"ick


    Attorneys at Law
    2
    17421 Chatsworth SI.

    Gnaada lIi11~ Ca. 91344-57.7

    (818) 368-9002
    FILED
    LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

    Bar#57J70

    AUG 0 8 Z007
    Attorney for Plaintiff
    JOH~RK
    'J
    BY L. PASTEL, DEPUTY

    ~ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE S'l ATE OF (",\1 II< IR;\;1 '\


    l.i FOR TilE COUNTY OF lOS A~(illl "
    II'

    I\f1RON KARA(jOI.IAN. ) C,...e \;0 S('()l},(Hlf! . /

    ~ I'1
    II )
    I Plaintiff. ) Jl'[){iML~1
    )
    I' ! \'~. )

    I
    )
    I~
    "II :SL-UP MAS f'LRS. INC.. a Iklawarc )

    I' \.orporation; et a!.. )

    Itl
    Defendant )

    1­ )

    1~ GOOD CAUSE APPEARING. it is here h) ordered that plamlltl. \lIR()~

    1'1
    KARA(JO/.lAN take Judgment against defendant AI 'I () I 11-1 A( '()\ lSI I \C ,\;
    'Ill

    « )RPe IRAI J( I'. a C,llfornia corporation. for fnrfellurc of lea...\.· alld pcl......l· ...... IIlll ot the pn:ml~':
    :'i
    IPGlll:J at 424(, Scpuheda Boulevard. Cul\\:r Cit), ('alihlrlllJ '10::' ,II

    "
    , Iii II,tted
    NJO 08.

    1l~~111<1

    318 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p318/679

    Вам также может понравиться