HOME  DISINFORMATION  PEOPLE  RAMBAM  KLAUSNER  DUNN  KUHL  DUKES  L.A. JUSTICE
Your $25,000 error

James R. Dunn
"Prior to my eye-opening experience in Rambam v Prytulak, I would have thought that a Canadian untrained in law would have had no chance in a California courtroom besting a California lawyer allied with a California judge because of how much law the two of them knew." Lubomyr Prytulak

Correction: references to CCP § 48a. 1. below should be to California Civil Code § 48a. 1.

Lubomyr Prytulak
UKAR the Ukrainian Archive at www.ukar.org
[Address]
[Telephone]
[Email]

26 March 2003


James R. Dunn
Los Angeles Superior Court
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA
USA     90012


Re: Rambam v Prytulak   BC271433   James R. Dunn

James R. Dunn:

I learn from the posting which first appeared on 24-Mar-2003 on the Los Angeles Superior Court online Case Summary for BC271433 that you released a judgment on 20-Mar-2003:

Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)

03/20/2003 Judgment (entered for pltiff Steven Rambam and against Lubomyr Prytulak aka Lubomir Prytulak in the amount of $75,000, consisting of 50,000 in special damages and $25,000 in general damages plus cost;) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr


Now that Rambam v Prytulak Case BC271433 is out of your hands such that my broaching a topic other than a jurisdictional challenge can no longer be taken as my attornment to your jurisdiction, I bring to your attention but without asking any remedy that your awarding $25,000 in general damages would be permissible only in the case of Steven Rambam serving me with a written notice specifying which statements he considered libelous, and demanding that these be corrected, and this within 20 days after his first awareness of their publication:

CCP § 48a.  1.  In any action for damages for the publication of a libel in a newspaper, or of a slander by radio broadcast, plaintiff shall recover no more than special damages unless a correction be demanded and be not published or broadcast, as hereinafter provided.  Plaintiff shall serve upon the publisher, at the place of publication or broadcaster at the place of broadcast, a written notice specifying the statements claimed to be libelous and demanding that the same be corrected.  Said notice and demand must be served within 20 days after knowledge of the publication or broadcast of the statements claimed to be libelous.


However, Steven Rambam failed to inform me (and certainly failed to serve me with a written notice), at any time (whether within the 20-day interval or afterward), what statements it was within my lengthy publications that he considered libelous.  Because of that omission, Steven Rambam is not entitled to any general damages, and thus not entitled to the US$25,000 in general damages that you award him.

To be more exact, Steven Rambam is not entitled to any damages whatever because your BC271433 proceedings were nullities ab initio, but if they had not been nullities, and if they had been free of other defects, and if I had defaulted, then Steven Rambam would not be entitled to general damages because of his failure to comply with CCP § 48a. 1. cited above.

And to demonstrate that Steven Rambam does not merely neglect to specify which statements in my publications he finds libelous, but actually resists doing so, you may have noticed that among the materials submitted to you by both Steven Rambam and myself was my letter to Steven Rambam of 13-Mar-2002, titled Steven Rambam (Rombom) shakedown for $25,000, which ends with the following offer, which Steven Rambam failed to take up:

You Are Not Without Recourse

In any case, if you can detail for me precisely where you think the record needs to be set straight in that Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter, then you can rely on my standing ready today, as I always have stood, to publish your statement on the Ukrainian Archive at www.ukar.org, and to make any changes called for by considerations of fairness and justice.


Prior to my eye-opening experience in Rambam v Prytulak, I would have thought that a Canadian untrained in law would have had no chance in a California courtroom besting a California lawyer allied with a California judge because of how much law the two of them knew; however, after my experience in Rambam v Prytulak, I conclude instead that a Canadian untrained in law may have no chance in a California courtroom besting a California lawyer allied with a California judge because of how little law the two of them know, of which your and Gary Kurtz's ignorance of CCP § 48a. 1. is further illustration.




Lubomyr Prytulak

cc:

James A Bascue, Judge • LASC • 111 North Hill Street • Los Angeles, CA • USA 90012
John A Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk • LASC • PO Box 151, Main Post Office • Los Angeles, CA • USA 90053
Robert A Dukes, Presiding Judge • LASC • 111 North Hill Street • Los Angeles, CA • USA 90012
Gary Klausner, Judge • USDC • 255 East Temple Street, Courtroom 850 • Los Angeles, CA • USA 90012
Carolyn B Kuhl, Supervising Judge, Civil Departments • LASC • 111 North Hill Street • Los Angeles, CA • USA 90012
Gary Kurtz, Esq • 20335 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200 • Woodland Hills, CA • USA 91364
William A MacLaughlin • Assistant Presiding Judge • LASC • 111 North Hill Street • Los Angeles, CA • USA 90012
S James Otero, Judge • USDC • 312 North Spring Street, Courtroom 1600 • Los Angeles, CA • USA 90012
Barry A Taylor, Judge • LASC • 6230 Sylmar Avenue • Van Nuys, CA • USA 91401
Bernadette Torivio, Executive Secretary • CJP • 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400 • San Francisco, CA • USA 94102-3660


HOME  DISINFORMATION  PEOPLE  RAMBAM  KLAUSNER  DUNN  KUHL  DUKES  L.A. JUSTICE