민사 | 사혁원장 진리의 법창야화 [493]
페이지 정보
스승관련링크
본문
사혁원장 진리의 법창야화 [493]
뻔뻔스러운 1심판사의 주장 - "판사들의 공모 등 부패의 가능성은 미국이 더 높다"에 관련하여 [11]
And the influence of this additional faults of LP continued to happen on June 15, 2009, on the hearing date of motion to dismiss in Service Case, which was granted with monetary sanction of $25,000 against J. If Plaintiff had got some information from LP, for example, some Defendants were investigated or arrested for the forgery or false personification, he would have prevailed that motion. The monetary damage of $25,000 is not materialized yet, but emotionally he suffered a lot of damage already. Plaintiff believes if LP made crime investigations on the first and the second crime reports, the levy of almost $8,000 could be blocked easily. In fact, if LP had already started the criminal investigations according to J’s crime reports, this damage would not have occurred and the federal cases would have been reinstated more easily.
At the hearing of 6/15/2009, Plaintiff asked to and discussed with the Court about reinstatement of the cases after getting new evidences from C or LP or DA Office. After the hearing, Plaintiff began to reinforce and confirm further discoveries from LC and DA Office and C. He also asked to and discussed with the Court about transfer the cases to a state court, not state court in Los Angeles County because of conflict of interest, without affecting statute of limitation.
After delivering the grievance and the fourth crime report to LP on 6/23/2009, Plaintiff also mailed a report with the copy of Exhibit 3 to DA Office on 6/25/2006.
Plaintiff emailed and faxed and mailed a letter dated June 21, 2009 to C as seen Exhibit 4. J demanded C’s admission for the third time while stating, “Enclosed please find a copy of DECLARATION OF J. Please read it and cooperate with me to find and reveal the true facts as stated in that declaration. I believe you will feel terribly sorry to me because you made very factual erroneous decision previously in 2005. … The factual error was not made by the trial judge… . On the contrary, very ironically and tragically and weirdly, the factual error was made by you through your some psychological confusion or bias or conspiracy. …”
However, Plaintiff received a letter from Judicial Council. This letter also states in shorter form, “Do not call, fax, or e-mail Justice C and do not go to his business or residence. Should you attempt to contact Justice C again, the matter will be referred to law enforcement for appropriate handling.” Of course, J felt very strong frustration, indignation, and some fear too on this indirect response from C. Plaintiff called Eric S (hereinafter, “S”) and left messages on 7/2/2009 but he received no returning call from S. Plaintiff called again and left message on 7/9/2009 but still he received no returning call so far. Plaintiff did not fully analyzed this circumstance yet at this time. And this informal discovery is still pending.
Though Plaintiff is still analyzing this incident on July 1 through July 9, 2009, he believes the analysis similar to LP applies. That is, if C had admitted his factual error earlier, the federal cases would have been reinstated more easily; and this recent acts/non-acts of C is extending the quasi-prison of civil version of conviction and the curse of vexatious litigant orders.
Now, let us introduce some parts of DECLARATION OF J dated March 17, 2009 and served to many agencies including C, LP, DA Office. Those in shorter from are: “I am the victim of crimes of R, M, etc. One of the purposes of this declaration is to support and supplement the two criminal reports. …. I am sure that if governmental agencies help me, who is also a victim of serious crimes, without dismissing the civil cases and without rejection of criminal investigations, we can prove against at least two criminals, R and M, beyond reasonable doubt and against G, H, T, Z Family, M, etc. at least with preponderance of evidence. …. The second purpose of this declaration is to persuade C to cooperate with me to reveal the true facts. …. This is still one of the great achievements of Judge Snyder that additional forgery and related perjury of R were committed and discovered. It is really great! And then, the additional evidence of the triangle conspiracy among H-R-G (“HRG triangle conspiracy” or “the triangle conspiracy” or “HRG conspiracy”) was discovered!! And there is still the third great achievement caused by or helped by Judge Snyder. Even if it was entry of default was vacated later by the same judge, the entry of default itself is of great significance. It implies my allegation is true and correct, while R and G and H and C’s allegations are false and incorrect!!! The implications of the entry of default against G were the implicit admission that the notice was never served to me in January of 1999 so that we can start the whole case with these newly implied factual true facts. I still believe H made erroneous ruling with conspiracy with R who committed conspiracy with G in BC///; and I believe Judge C also made erroneous legal decision but without any conspiracy in BC///.” This is to be continued to next paragraph.
동서문화원 원장/ 사법혁신원 원장/ 납세자보호센터 회장 이 진 213-482-1805
[계속]
또 다른 연재, “사혁원장 진리의 인용/사설”은 오늘은 쉽니다.
저희의 페이스북에 저희의 글들을 찾아볼 수 있으니 들르세요. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=149736875073602#!/notes.php?id=100000018391388
중앙일보 블로그에도 있으며, 거기에서 동영상/ 음악도 감상하세요.
http://blog.koreadaily.com/media.asp?med_usrid=mentor2
뻔뻔스러운 1심판사의 주장 - "판사들의 공모 등 부패의 가능성은 미국이 더 높다"에 관련하여 [11]
And the influence of this additional faults of LP continued to happen on June 15, 2009, on the hearing date of motion to dismiss in Service Case, which was granted with monetary sanction of $25,000 against J. If Plaintiff had got some information from LP, for example, some Defendants were investigated or arrested for the forgery or false personification, he would have prevailed that motion. The monetary damage of $25,000 is not materialized yet, but emotionally he suffered a lot of damage already. Plaintiff believes if LP made crime investigations on the first and the second crime reports, the levy of almost $8,000 could be blocked easily. In fact, if LP had already started the criminal investigations according to J’s crime reports, this damage would not have occurred and the federal cases would have been reinstated more easily.
At the hearing of 6/15/2009, Plaintiff asked to and discussed with the Court about reinstatement of the cases after getting new evidences from C or LP or DA Office. After the hearing, Plaintiff began to reinforce and confirm further discoveries from LC and DA Office and C. He also asked to and discussed with the Court about transfer the cases to a state court, not state court in Los Angeles County because of conflict of interest, without affecting statute of limitation.
After delivering the grievance and the fourth crime report to LP on 6/23/2009, Plaintiff also mailed a report with the copy of Exhibit 3 to DA Office on 6/25/2006.
Plaintiff emailed and faxed and mailed a letter dated June 21, 2009 to C as seen Exhibit 4. J demanded C’s admission for the third time while stating, “Enclosed please find a copy of DECLARATION OF J. Please read it and cooperate with me to find and reveal the true facts as stated in that declaration. I believe you will feel terribly sorry to me because you made very factual erroneous decision previously in 2005. … The factual error was not made by the trial judge… . On the contrary, very ironically and tragically and weirdly, the factual error was made by you through your some psychological confusion or bias or conspiracy. …”
However, Plaintiff received a letter from Judicial Council. This letter also states in shorter form, “Do not call, fax, or e-mail Justice C and do not go to his business or residence. Should you attempt to contact Justice C again, the matter will be referred to law enforcement for appropriate handling.” Of course, J felt very strong frustration, indignation, and some fear too on this indirect response from C. Plaintiff called Eric S (hereinafter, “S”) and left messages on 7/2/2009 but he received no returning call from S. Plaintiff called again and left message on 7/9/2009 but still he received no returning call so far. Plaintiff did not fully analyzed this circumstance yet at this time. And this informal discovery is still pending.
Though Plaintiff is still analyzing this incident on July 1 through July 9, 2009, he believes the analysis similar to LP applies. That is, if C had admitted his factual error earlier, the federal cases would have been reinstated more easily; and this recent acts/non-acts of C is extending the quasi-prison of civil version of conviction and the curse of vexatious litigant orders.
Now, let us introduce some parts of DECLARATION OF J dated March 17, 2009 and served to many agencies including C, LP, DA Office. Those in shorter from are: “I am the victim of crimes of R, M, etc. One of the purposes of this declaration is to support and supplement the two criminal reports. …. I am sure that if governmental agencies help me, who is also a victim of serious crimes, without dismissing the civil cases and without rejection of criminal investigations, we can prove against at least two criminals, R and M, beyond reasonable doubt and against G, H, T, Z Family, M, etc. at least with preponderance of evidence. …. The second purpose of this declaration is to persuade C to cooperate with me to reveal the true facts. …. This is still one of the great achievements of Judge Snyder that additional forgery and related perjury of R were committed and discovered. It is really great! And then, the additional evidence of the triangle conspiracy among H-R-G (“HRG triangle conspiracy” or “the triangle conspiracy” or “HRG conspiracy”) was discovered!! And there is still the third great achievement caused by or helped by Judge Snyder. Even if it was entry of default was vacated later by the same judge, the entry of default itself is of great significance. It implies my allegation is true and correct, while R and G and H and C’s allegations are false and incorrect!!! The implications of the entry of default against G were the implicit admission that the notice was never served to me in January of 1999 so that we can start the whole case with these newly implied factual true facts. I still believe H made erroneous ruling with conspiracy with R who committed conspiracy with G in BC///; and I believe Judge C also made erroneous legal decision but without any conspiracy in BC///.” This is to be continued to next paragraph.
동서문화원 원장/ 사법혁신원 원장/ 납세자보호센터 회장 이 진 213-482-1805
[계속]
또 다른 연재, “사혁원장 진리의 인용/사설”은 오늘은 쉽니다.
저희의 페이스북에 저희의 글들을 찾아볼 수 있으니 들르세요. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=149736875073602#!/notes.php?id=100000018391388
중앙일보 블로그에도 있으며, 거기에서 동영상/ 음악도 감상하세요.
http://blog.koreadaily.com/media.asp?med_usrid=mentor2
작성일2012-07-05 14:05
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
