Lubomyr Prytulak Ukrainian Archive, www.ukar.org [Address] [Telephone] [Email] 04 December 2002 |
Defendant Lubomyr Prytulak received his first feedback concerning James R. Dunn's reaction to Motion-to-Quash-D on 27-Nov-2002, when the following entry appeared under Proceedings Held on the Los Angeles Superior Court web site Case Summary for Case BC271433:
11/25/2002 at 09:00 am in department 26, James R. Dunn, Presiding
Motion for an Order - Granted in Part
|
11/25/2002 at 09:00 am in department 26, James R. Dunn, Presiding
Motion for an Order - Motion Denied
|
One may account for the reliability of the above spoliation by supposing that because each Lubomyr Prytulak submission has taken to including a complaint of the expurgation of previous submissions, James R. Dunn feels he has no choice but to expurgate it as well, thereby excluding Lubomyr Prytulak from participation as punishment for his complaining of having been excluded from participation.
I ask you to awaken to the understanding that it is in the interests of justice that this circle be broken through external intervention. As James R. Dunn has long ago wandered beyond mere error into the realm of flagrant coram non judice, and after that into the realm of crime, nothing prevents you, as Supervising Judge of the Civil Division, from initiating such intervention. As James R. Dunn now unabashedly flaunts his profound and unwavering loyalty to Kurtz-Rambam not only by his systematic purging of the trial record in their favor, but even by denying Lubomyr Prytulak a minute order covering the Prytulak Motion-to-Quash-D that was heard 25-Nov-2002, any hope that Rambam v Prytulak can be redeemed by a mere admission of suppressed documents to the trial record has vanished. What must be recognized now is that James R. Dunn's venture into playing the role of judge has failed, and all that remains is to see how much farther he will succeed in dragging the Los Angeles Superior Court into disrepute before he is asked to leave the stage.
Lubomyr Prytulak