HOME  DISINFORMATION  PEOPLE  RAMBAM  KLAUSNER  DUNN  L.A. JUSTICE           FEDEX to Kurtz  FEDEX to Court
02-Dec-2002   Prytulak-Request-For-Minute-Order   James R. Dunn

Los Angeles Superior Court spoliation of six Defendant Lubomyr Prytulak submissions has already justified the depiction of Judge James R. Dunn as clapping his hands over his ears whenever Lubomyr Prytulak begins to speak.  Also, Court spoliation of one Plaintiff Steven Rambam submission has already justified the depiction of James R. Dunn as clapping his hands over his ears when Rambam Lawyer, Gary Kurtz, begins to speak so thoughtlessly as to assist the defense.

What the Prytulak-Request-For-Minute-Order below documents is that James R. Dunn also claps his hands over his mouth when he finds himself about to say something in Lubomyr Prytulak's hearing that might be of assistance to Lubomyr Prytulak.  Quite simply and starkly, Gary Kurtz and James R. Dunn deny Lubomyr Prytulak information concerning what happened on 25-Nov-2002, the day that James R. Dunn was supposed to have heard the Prytulak Motion-to-Quash-D.

Also illustrated is how insufficiency from the Plaintiff direction in disclosing the outcome of the hearing costs James R. Dunn no time or money, and costs Gary Kurtz perhaps a few minutes time and a few cents of expenditure (to write the two sentences quoted below), whereas in contrast it costs Lubomyr Prytulak hours of labor, and CAN$60.03 for two FedExes (to James R. Dunn and to Gary Kurtz), and for three color photocopies of the FedEx waybill used as proof of service (one to James R. Dunn, one to Gary Kurtz, and one for Lubomyr Prytulak).  In sum, as the Dunn-Kurtz-Rambam coalition has learned that it suffers defeat every time it ventures to wield the weapon of law, it instead falls back on wielding the weapon of vexation.

The conduct of Steven Rambam Lawyer Gary Kurtz, together with that of Steven Rambam Judge James R. Dunn, gives the appearance of the last stand of men driven by desperation.  What hope can this trio have that their massive spoliation of documents will fail to attach to their names for life?  What hope can Judge James R. Dunn have of erasing from his resume his eight-month-so-far � and perhaps record-shattering � refusal to evaluate his jurisdiction over non-resident litigants?  What hope can Dunn-Kurtz-Rambam have that their crimes and chicaneries will avoid being judged by minds more disinterested than theirs as having involved irregularity in the proceedings of the Court as well as of the Plaintiff, and as having included abuse of discretion by which Defendant was prevented from having a fair trial?

California CCP §657.  The verdict may be vacated and any other decision may be modified or vacated, in whole or in part, and a new or further trial granted on all or part of the issues, on the application of the party aggrieved, for any of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of such party:
     1. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial.
•  Bold emphasis added.


The version of the Prytulak-Request-For-Minute-Order shown below incorporates a corrigendum that was mailed to Gary Kurtz and to the Court on 03-Dec-2002.  A possible effect of this Prytulak-Request-For-Minute-Order can be read in the 04-Dec-2002 Prytulak letter to Supervising Judge of the Civil Division, Gary Klausner, titled Did James R. Dunn read before shredding?


In propria persona:
Lubomyr Prytulak
[Address]
[Telephone]
[Email]



SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES



Steven RAMBAM
Plaintiff

v

Lubomyr PRYTULAK
Defendant 		|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  

Case No.   BC 271433

DEFENDANT PRYTULAK OBJECTS TO
INADEQUATE AND CONTRADICTORY INFORMATION CONCERNING THE HEARING OF 25-NOV-2002, AND REQUESTS A MINUTE ORDER

[Not a general appearance CCP �418.10]




The hearing of 25-Nov-2002 was for the purpose of considering Defendant Prytulak motion filed 26-Sep-2002 and titled "Notice of Motion to Vacate Default or Default Judgment joined with Notice of Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction."  The motion requested the quashing of service on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, which would bring the incidental benefit of setting aside default entry.

To date, Defendant Prytulak has received uninformative and contradictory statements concerning the outcome of the 25-Nov-2002 hearing.  First to appear was the following entry on the Los Angeles Superior Court web site Case Summary for Case BC271433:

Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)

11/25/2002 at 09:00 am in department 26, James R. Dunn, Presiding Motion for an Order � Granted in Part

Following that, on 29-Nov-2002, Lubomyr Prytulak received two documents mailed by Plaintiff lawyer, Gary Kurtz:

  1. One, initialed by Gary Kurtz, was titled NOTICE OF RULING RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE, and stated only that "After reviewing all of the papers submitted to the Court, the Court denied the motion, both on procedural and substantive grounds."

  2. The other, providing a blank for the signature of "Hon. James Dunn" but unsigned, was titled [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND TO QUASH SERVICE, and stated only that "After reviewing all of the papers submitted to the Court, the Court denied the motion, both on procedural and substantive grounds, as set forth in the reporter's record of the hearing."

Defendant Lubomyr Prytulak finds the above pieces of information taken individually to be insufficiently informative, and finds them taken together to be contradictory, as the Court's online "granted in part" is radically different from Gary Kurtz's unqualified "denied."  The effect of such inadequate and contradictory information is to place Defendant Lubomyr Prytulak at a disadvantage, to waste his time (as by necessitating the writing of the instant objection), and to deplete his resources (FedExing the instant objection to both the Court and Gary Kurtz will cost Lubomyr Prytulak approximately CAN$55).

As Gary Kurtz states in each of his two documents that the Court arrived at its decision "after reviewing all the papers submitted to the Court," Defendant Lubomyr Prytulak ventures to ask exactly what papers these might have been, and especially whether they include all, or some, or even any, of the seven documents whose exclusion from the trial record Defendant Prytulak has been complaining of, namely:

  1. Motion-to-Quash-B dated 27-May-2002
    www.ukar.org/temp/quash02.html

  2. Prytulak-Query-B dated 14-Jun-2002
    www.ukar.org/temp/query01.html

  3. Motion-to-Quash-C dated 29-Aug-2002, accompanied by a money order for US$193
    www.ukar.org/temp/quash03.html

  4. Rambam-Objection-C dated 03-Sep-2002
    www.ukar.org/temp/obj03sep.html

  5. Prytulak-Reply-C dated 13-Sep-2002, accompanied by a money order for US$23
    www.ukar.org/temp/rep13sep.html

  6. Prytulak-Reply-D3 dated 05-Nov-2002
    www.ukar.org/temp/rep05nov.html

  7. Prytulak-Reply-D7 dated 21-Nov-2002
    www.ukar.org/temp/rep21nov.html

Defendant Lubomyr Prytulak asks the Court to provide him with a minute order covering the hearing of 25-Nov-2002 � particularly a minute order that discloses which of the above seven documents were in fact reviewed by the Court.


Dated:   02 December 2002


By: ____________________________________________

      Lubomyr Prytulak
      Defendant in propria persona




PROOF OF SERVICE




HOME  DISINFORMATION  PEOPLE  RAMBAM  KLAUSNER  DUNN  L.A. JUSTICE           FEDEX to Kurtz  FEDEX to Court