Judge James R. Dunn Misrepresents His Military Record
"My own information, however, is that James R. Dunn's military service covered not eight years, but only four, in fact beginning 06-Aug-1962 and ending 05-Jun-1966." — Lubomyr Prytulak
UKAR the Ukrainian Archive at www.ukar.org
12 March 2003
Carolyn B. Kuhl
Supervising Judge, Civil Departments
Los Angeles Superior Court
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA
Re: Rambam v Prytulak BC271433 James R. Dunn
Carolyn B. Kuhl:
The Riddle Remains Unsolved
When Steven Rambam lawyer, Gary Kurtz, started the first of his two Rambam v Prytulak law suits (the first being Case 02E00326 before Judge Barry A. Taylor), the one question Kurtz knew he would be unable to answer is why the Los Angeles Superior Court should take jurisdiction over Canadian Lubomyr Prytulak when the California Court of Appeal had just refused (in JDO v Superior Court) to permit the Los Angeles Superior Court to take jurisdiction over New Yorker Mordechai Levy. When Lubomyr Prytulak's Motion-to-Quash-A did pose this question of jurisdiction, Gary Kurtz found himself at a loss for words, abandoned that first law suit, and decamped to try his luck a second time in another Rambam v Prytulak law suit (BC271433), but this time before a judge — James R. Dunn — who would do Kurtz the unusual service of shielding him from the very jurisdiction question which Kurtz dreaded being asked.
Thus is posed the riddle of what consideration motivates James R. Dunn to provide such an unusual service, such an illicit and un-judicial and un-American service, and more particularly how it comes to pass that James R. Dunn enters his twelfth month of refusing to evaluate his own jurisdiction, refusing despite Lubomyr Prytulak citing voluminous and weighty precedent that:
The riddle is compounded by James R. Dunn prohibiting Court clerks from offering Lubomyr Prytulak the obligatory cooperation and feedback that they customarily offer litigants; and as well, and most importantly, by James R. Dunn implementing a campaign of systematic suppression or destruction — which is to say, spoliation — of Lubomyr Prytulak submissions that challenge jurisdiction.
- Jurisdiction can be evaluated at any time, meaning at any stage of the proceedings, and meaning also without constraint by deadlines and time limits, from which it follows that jurisdiction can be evaluated while defendant is in default, and where demonstrating jurisdiction failure is a traditional tool for vacating default.
- Jurisdiction must be evaluated even in response to motions that are informal, and indeed upon requests put in any manner whatever, even upon mere suggestions.
- Jurisdiction evaluation must come first — must be preliminary, threshold, in limine.
- If others fail to remind a judge to evaluate his own jurisdiction, he is nevertheless obligated to do so sua sponte or ex mero motu, which is to say, on his own motion, as might be appropriate, for example, upon his being prompted by the observation that the defendant is a non-resident of California, or upon his recollecting such appellate decisions as the widely-cited JDO v Superior Court.
James R. Dunn service to Gary Kurtz and Steven Rambam, then, demonstrates a loyalty so absolute as to elicit astonishment and to cry out for explanation.
Another Step Toward a Solution?
Please note that the enclosed page from the official James R. Dunn BIOGRAPHY on file with the Los Angeles Superior Court claims military service in the California Air National Guard over the eight years 1962-1970 which culminated in the rank of Airman First Class.
My own information, however, is that James R. Dunn's military service covered not eight years, but only four, in fact beginning 06-Aug-1962 and ending 05-Jun-1966.
If the latter dates are more accurate, then:
The Los Angeles Superior Court must expect that when its judges usurp authority by acting without jurisdiction, the victims of their persecution will question the judges' motives, and when the victims discover that a judge has been guilty of misconduct, they will hypothesize that the character defect which earlier contributed to the misconduct could recently have contributed toward his usurping authority; or when the victims discover that the judge has skeletons in his closet, they will hypothesize that he may have succumbed to blackmail.
- James R. Dunn should be asked to allay apprehension that he is concealing his true 1966-1970 activities — he should explain why he misrepresented the duration of his military service and what he really did during the four misrepresented years.
- James R. Dunn should be asked to allay apprehension that his military service was blemished by unmeritorious conduct — he should explain why with his Stanford degrees in Industrial Engineering and in Law, he was unable after four years of service to rise above the rank of Airman First Class which is the rank credited to boys out of high school at the end of their first year of service.
It may be added that the examples of Patrick Couwenberg and James R. Dunn suggest that Court verification of biographical claims is perfunctory at best, such that some judges sitting on the Los Angeles Superior Court today might owe their jobs to biographical misrepresentation.
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
James R Dunn, 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
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