14-Jun-2002  What happened to my Motion-to-Quash-B? ("Prytulak-Query-B")
An explanation of the nomenclature by which reference is made to "Motion-to-Quash-B" can be found in the Prytulak letter to Bascue of 27-Sep-2002.
Lubomyr Prytulak

14 June 2002

Los Angeles Superior Court ¾ Central
111 N. Hill Street
Los Angeles, California    90012

Case No. BC271433
Defendant: Lubomyr PRYTULAK
Plaintiff: Steven RAMBAM

I bring the following four issues to the court's attention.

What happened to my Motion to Quash?

My Motion to Quash, dated 27-May-2002 was addressed as follows:

Hon. James R. Dunn: Dept 26, Room 316
Los Angeles Superior Court Central
111 N. Hill Street
Los Angeles, California
USA      90012

FedEx tracking of this Motion indicates that it was delivered to the Mailroom at 08:57 on 29-May-2002 and was signed for by J. Mabini.  As of the morning of 14-Jun-2002, however, acknowledgment of the receipt of this Motion has not appeared on the Superior Court of Los Angeles web site Case Summary for Case No. BC271433.

If my Motion to Quash is defective, I would appreciate being informed so that I can correct it, even as I see the plaintiff being informed when his submissions are defective.

If the court objects to my Motion to Quash not being presented on the proper form, then I point out that I had searched the Superior Court web site for a Motion to Quash form, failed to find one, and my query to the webmaster concerning such a form went unanswered.

Is the Court going to allow redundant suits?

I am astonished that Steven Rambam is permitted to complain in his Case No. 02E00326 (filed on 09-Jan-2002, and still pending) of alleged defamation contained in a certain public document, and then to complain in his Case No. BC271433 (filed 04-Apr-2002, and still pending) of alleged defamation contained in exactly this same document plus one other.  I look forward next to Steven Rambam initiating a third law suit, before a third judge, which complains of the first two documents plus one other.

No Early Mediation without jurisdiction

A challenge to jurisdiction surely presents a barrier to all other proceedings, most especially to mediation.

If in scheduling an Early Mediation hearing, the Superior Court was unable to anticipate a challenge to jurisdiction from the peculiarity that the plaintiff lives in another state (New York), or from the peculiarity that the defendant lives in another country (Canada), or from the California Court of Appeal (B129319) having told this same plaintiff (Steven Rambam) represented by this same attorney (Gary Kurtz) that it refused jurisdiction over the same circumstances that he complains of today then at least the Superior Court can see that the challenge to jurisdiction is being raised now, and so that the 01-Jul-2002 scheduling of an Early Mediation hearing that I find on the Superior Court web site is inappropriate and needs to be cancelled.

I am surprised, furthermore, that I received no query as to the acceptability of the scheduling of the above Early Mediation hearing, and in fact not even any notification that it had been scheduled.  It appears that the court felt it sufficient to post the date on its web site, and felt it adequate to expect me to continually check this web site to see what hearings the Court obligated me to attend, and to reschedule the rest of my life around whatever date it assigned.

I wonder if Steven Rambam is similarly excluded from participation in scheduling, and receives no notification of it.  If he is getting better treatment than that, then here too I venture to request equality.

Retaining a California attorney

I have queried a California attorney on the possibility of his bringing the Superior Court's lack of jurisdiction to its attention, and have been informed that he would require a retainer of $8,500 (which works out to $13,039 Canadian).  Especially as a retainer is not a final bill, and as proceedings could end up taking twice as long ($26,078 Canadian), or three times as long ($39,117 Canadian), I conclude that retaining a California lawyer is beyond my means.

The alternative is ... I don't know whether to call it Orwellian or Kafkaesque.  The alternative finds many expressions, among them the following:

The Court will appreciate that the above alternative, no matter how expressed, is unbearable and unacceptable, and so that my continuing to assist the Court in understanding Rambam-Kurtz activity is going to have to be postal or electronic only, and is going to have to be unassisted by counsel.  In other words, I will be unable either to attend myself, or to send representation to, any California proceeding.

Lubomyr Prytulak

Gary Kurtz, Esq.,
20335 Ventura Blvd, Suite 108
Woodland Hills, California    91364