Kurtz Controls All Extant Copies
"If the Court surrendered its original to Kurtz after Prytulak began petitioning the Court for a copy, this would open up the possibility that the Court surrendered its original to Kurtz because Prytulak began petitioning the Court for a copy." — Lubomyr Prytulak
After the eight requests itemized below, and after the passage of three months minus one day from the first request, Lubomyr Prytulak did finally receive the sought-for Book of Exhibits from Gary Kurtz on 09-July-2003. Prytulak was disappointed not only with the delay in delivery, but also with the copy received not being stamped as the official court copy, and with the pages not being numbered continuously through all exhibits which he imagined was standard practice to make more difficult the removal or insertion of pages.
James R. Dunn
Los Angeles Superior Court
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA
Re: Defendant Prytulak request for
Plaintiff Rambam 03-Oct-2002 Book of Exhibits
Los Angeles Superior Court, Rambam v Prytulak, BC271433
James R. Dunn:
As argued in the Prytulak letter to you of 07-Jun-2003 titled Unlawful interference with the reviewing court, your having surrendered the Court original of the 03-Oct-2002 Plaintiff Rambam Book of Exhibits into the hands of Plaintiff lawyer Gary Kurtz appears to be unauthorized under California CCP §§ 1952(a), 1952(c), and 1952.2 for the reasons that final determination — which encompasses final determination upon appeal — has not been reached, that Defendant does not have his own copy and indeed has never seen a copy, that no court order for the surrender was issued, and that neither "oral stipulation in open court" nor "written stipulation by the parties" nor argument for "good cause shown" has been made.
As the date of the Court surrender of its original of the Book of Exhibits to Kurtz remains to be disclosed, it is unclear whether it took place before Prytulak began petitioning the Court for his own copy in his letter to you of 10-Apr-2003, or after. If the Court surrendered its original to Kurtz after Prytulak began petitioning the Court for a copy, this would open up the possibility that the Court surrendered its original to Kurtz because Prytulak began petitioning the Court for a copy.
Your recommending to Prytulak, in your 12-May-2003 Minute Order, that he apply for a copy of the elusive Book of Exhibits not to the Court but to Kurtz led Prytulak to make such a request (dated 07-Jun-2003 and served on Kurtz by FedEx 10-Jun-2003) titled Please send me a copy of the Rambam Book of Exhibits, of which request your Court was served a copy. As might be expected when Plaintiff has taken possession of all extant copies of a document sought by Defendant on the expectation that it evidences Plaintiff fraud, Plaintiff lawyer Kurtz neglects to respond.
As Prytulak's need to examine the Rambam Book of Exhibits does remain urgent, and as your Court's, and Gary Kurtz's, failure to supply Prytulak with a copy does continue to obstruct his appeal, the Court-Plaintiff collaboration in denying Defendant access to the Book of Exhibits appears to contravene the prohibition against interference with a reviewing court's proceedings expressed in California Rule of Court 46.5.
Consideration of the CCP together with the Rules of Court recommends the resolution which the instant letter requests — that you fill the gap in the trial record by retrieving the Court original of the Book of Exhibits from Kurtz, and that after verifying the integrity of the retrieved original, you serve Prytulak with a copy.
Defendant Prytulak protests this latest instance of your Court's long-standing policy of obstructing Prytulak's ability to present his case, an obstruction whose egregiousness is evidenced by the instant request for a copy of the Book of Exhibits being the eighth, with Gary Kurtz having been mailed or FedExed copies of all eight requests:
The above list of petitions which Prytulak has been put to the trouble of writing is not the first such list that Prytulak has brought to your attention, and together with the previous lists similarly documenting multiple requests for documents which the Court was equally unwilling to produce supports the appearance of steadfast and unremitting Court prejudice against Defendant Prytulak.
- 10-Apr-2003 Prytulak to Dunn: [mailed but unpublished online]
- 11-Apr-2003 Prytulak to Dunn: Appear and you shall not be heard
- 16-Apr-2003 Prytulak to Dunn: I've been waiting 27 days!
- 21-Apr-2003 Prytulak to Dukes: Can the Los Angeles Superior Court sabotage appeals?
- 23-Apr-2003 Prytulak to Dunn: You think you can sabotage my appeal?
- 07-Jun-2003 Prytulak to Dunn: Unlawful interference with the reviewing court
- 07-Jun-2003 Prytulak to Kurtz: Please send me a copy of the Rambam Book of Exhibits
- 30-Jun-2003 Prytulak to Dunn: Kurtz controls all extant copies [the instant letter]
The most direct and narrow consequence of such Court prejudice is that any judgment given birth will be unenforceable in a foreign jurisdiction, this on the principle that all jurisdictions protect those under their care from foreign injustice. Thus, California protects Californians from foreign injustice, as for example:
CCP § 1713.4. (a) A foreign judgment is not conclusive if|
(1) The judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law [...].
And Canada similarly protects Canadians from foreign injustice, as for example:
5 Where an action is brought in the Province upon a foreign judgment, it shall be a sufficient defence:|
(i) that the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained were contrary to natural justice.
Canada Foreign Judgments Act
Thus, even if it were not the case that your judgment was unenforceable in Canada because of lack of personal jurisdiction, it would nevertheless be unenforceable because of your Court's having denied Defendant due process. More specifically, your denying Defendant Prytulak a copy of the Book of Exhibits constitutes extrinsic fraud, and has the same effect as your stamping "VOID" across the face of the judgment which Plaintiff Rambam must earlier have been pleased to receive from your hands.
More indirect and broader-reaching consequences of your prejudice are that it brings the California judicial office into disrepute, and that it offers entrepreneurs considering doing business in California an inducement to carry their trade to an alternative jurisdiction where the law is able to offer them a stronger promise of equal protection.
Your prejudice in handling Rambam v Prytulak, then, robs all concerned. It robs Defendant Prytulak of his tranquility and his labor over the interval of a year and a half. It gratuitously adds one further guarantee that Plaintiff Rambam will never be able to cash in his award. It mars the good repute of California courts. And by frightening off entrepreneurs who shy at lawlessness, it detracts from the robust economy to which the labor of the California people entitles them.
Gary Kurtz, Esq 20335 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA USA 91364