민사 | 사혁원장 진리의 법창야화 [553]
페이지 정보
스승관련링크
본문
사혁원장 진리의 법창야화 [553]
법창야화 및 인용사설 양 연재 합계 1000회 돌파 기념특집 [9]
이번 특집에는 jobkoreausa 에서 인기있었던 글 중 하나를 재발표하자. 현재까지 조회수 2140인 478회이다.
뻔뻔스러운 1심판사의 주장 - "판사들의 공모 등 부패의 가능성은 미국이 더 높다"에 관련하여 [4]
오랜만에 이 소주제로 돌아와 본다. 그런데 이번 소주제 제목을 무책임한 전직 항소판사 [24]로 고려해보았는데 양쪽 다 관련이 있다.
변호사 하나 구하는데 무려 2개월이나 결렸다. 그동안 내 시간 낭비, 마음고생, 약간의 돈 낭비, .... 그리고 또 한번 변호사들에 대한 환멸 등....
오늘은 나의 소송장에서 변호사에게 따로 보여준 일부를 인용하면서....
As of now, Plaintiff has many new evidences and prospective new evidences through the discovery for this instant case, and they will vacate the judgment in R Case, G Case, Forgery Case, and so on. And since this case is filed with the state court, the 11th amendment immunity will not work anymore. Each of the following new evidences were created or discovered after 1/10/2005, which is the date of Opinions of Court of Appeal in the old three cases. Therefore, these should not be influenced or restricted by those Opinions.
The 1st evidence is the forgery of R. About in September of 2006, R made another crime of forgery of backdating as many as 7 ½ years to January 7, 1999. This R’s forgery has been already proved by me and private investigator Im and document examiner Hicks. This is actually the second forgery and this second forgery proved his first forgery too circumstantially at least. R made also forgery of backdating 3 months at that time not 7 ½ years. With his April cover letter, R made forgery of backdating to January 7, 1999 in the 2966 notice. So, R made two forgeJs anyway. The first forgery in April of 1999 was 3 month backdating, whereas the second forgery in September of 2006 is 7 ½ year backdating.
The 2nd evidence. It was discovered during the deposition on R on October 26, 2006 and one his testimonies proved direct violation of the state law. This was testified by R himself. According to his testimony, R never mailed the 2966 notice by certified mail in January of 1999 and he never got the certificate of mailing in January of 1999 either. This law code should be strictly performed “as is”; otherwise, it became wrongful and unlawful foreclosure. Even in the small claim about the bad check related notice, it should be certified mail and required certificate of mail, even if it is $300 or $2000. On the contrary, this 2966 notice is about the whole 4-unit property matter of the value of several hundred thousand dollars and also the matter of taking out the life and business from a long-rooted ground. This certificate should be a lot stricter than bad check matters. But still it was violated. And he admitted his own violation. R’s dishonesty has been proved already through other evidences including his forgery, and thus his testimony in this second evidence is not credible. Nevertheless, even if it is assumed his testimony is true, his testimony in deposition is sufficient evidence to invalidate and vacate all of the judgments related to R and G and H and so on.
The 3rd evidence. The above two additional evidences should be considered when Plaintiff filed the motion for resurrection through Section 662. But at that time, through the conflict of interest, LASC and previous Judge H should voluntarily transfer this case to another state court in another county. On the contrary, H refused it but took the case by himself to protect his own interest and to conceal his own previous errors and torts underground permanently. If this matter were transferred to another county state court at that time, the previous judgments and orders would have been vacated and Plaintiff would have prevailed the cases about in 2008 already in a state court via jury trial.
The 4th evidence. It happened in 2007 until June 25, 2007, and there were additional triangle conspiracies among H-R-G. That is the 4th evidence as stated fully in previous parts.
The 5th evidence is that H made fraud, which is analyzed in previous parts. He knew this was in conflict of interest. He was virtually one of the key defendants in a case of J and still he fraudulently declared in his own declaration. Why did he make this fraud? It is because of the continued conspiracy for his own interest, according to Plaintiff’s information and belief.
The 6th evidence.
동서문화원 원장/ 사법혁신원 원장// 통역사/법무사/변호사평가사 이 진 213-482-1805
[계속]
또 다른 연재, “사혁원장 진리의 인용/사설”은 오늘은 쉽니다.
저희의 페이스북에 저희의 글들을 찾아볼 수 있으니 들르세요. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=149736875073602#!/notes.php?id=100000018391388
중앙일보 블로그에도 있으며, 거기에서 동영상/ 음악도 감상하세요.
http://blog.koreadaily.com/media.asp?med_usrid=mentor2
법창야화 및 인용사설 양 연재 합계 1000회 돌파 기념특집 [9]
이번 특집에는 jobkoreausa 에서 인기있었던 글 중 하나를 재발표하자. 현재까지 조회수 2140인 478회이다.
뻔뻔스러운 1심판사의 주장 - "판사들의 공모 등 부패의 가능성은 미국이 더 높다"에 관련하여 [4]
오랜만에 이 소주제로 돌아와 본다. 그런데 이번 소주제 제목을 무책임한 전직 항소판사 [24]로 고려해보았는데 양쪽 다 관련이 있다.
변호사 하나 구하는데 무려 2개월이나 결렸다. 그동안 내 시간 낭비, 마음고생, 약간의 돈 낭비, .... 그리고 또 한번 변호사들에 대한 환멸 등....
오늘은 나의 소송장에서 변호사에게 따로 보여준 일부를 인용하면서....
As of now, Plaintiff has many new evidences and prospective new evidences through the discovery for this instant case, and they will vacate the judgment in R Case, G Case, Forgery Case, and so on. And since this case is filed with the state court, the 11th amendment immunity will not work anymore. Each of the following new evidences were created or discovered after 1/10/2005, which is the date of Opinions of Court of Appeal in the old three cases. Therefore, these should not be influenced or restricted by those Opinions.
The 1st evidence is the forgery of R. About in September of 2006, R made another crime of forgery of backdating as many as 7 ½ years to January 7, 1999. This R’s forgery has been already proved by me and private investigator Im and document examiner Hicks. This is actually the second forgery and this second forgery proved his first forgery too circumstantially at least. R made also forgery of backdating 3 months at that time not 7 ½ years. With his April cover letter, R made forgery of backdating to January 7, 1999 in the 2966 notice. So, R made two forgeJs anyway. The first forgery in April of 1999 was 3 month backdating, whereas the second forgery in September of 2006 is 7 ½ year backdating.
The 2nd evidence. It was discovered during the deposition on R on October 26, 2006 and one his testimonies proved direct violation of the state law. This was testified by R himself. According to his testimony, R never mailed the 2966 notice by certified mail in January of 1999 and he never got the certificate of mailing in January of 1999 either. This law code should be strictly performed “as is”; otherwise, it became wrongful and unlawful foreclosure. Even in the small claim about the bad check related notice, it should be certified mail and required certificate of mail, even if it is $300 or $2000. On the contrary, this 2966 notice is about the whole 4-unit property matter of the value of several hundred thousand dollars and also the matter of taking out the life and business from a long-rooted ground. This certificate should be a lot stricter than bad check matters. But still it was violated. And he admitted his own violation. R’s dishonesty has been proved already through other evidences including his forgery, and thus his testimony in this second evidence is not credible. Nevertheless, even if it is assumed his testimony is true, his testimony in deposition is sufficient evidence to invalidate and vacate all of the judgments related to R and G and H and so on.
The 3rd evidence. The above two additional evidences should be considered when Plaintiff filed the motion for resurrection through Section 662. But at that time, through the conflict of interest, LASC and previous Judge H should voluntarily transfer this case to another state court in another county. On the contrary, H refused it but took the case by himself to protect his own interest and to conceal his own previous errors and torts underground permanently. If this matter were transferred to another county state court at that time, the previous judgments and orders would have been vacated and Plaintiff would have prevailed the cases about in 2008 already in a state court via jury trial.
The 4th evidence. It happened in 2007 until June 25, 2007, and there were additional triangle conspiracies among H-R-G. That is the 4th evidence as stated fully in previous parts.
The 5th evidence is that H made fraud, which is analyzed in previous parts. He knew this was in conflict of interest. He was virtually one of the key defendants in a case of J and still he fraudulently declared in his own declaration. Why did he make this fraud? It is because of the continued conspiracy for his own interest, according to Plaintiff’s information and belief.
The 6th evidence.
동서문화원 원장/ 사법혁신원 원장// 통역사/법무사/변호사평가사 이 진 213-482-1805
[계속]
또 다른 연재, “사혁원장 진리의 인용/사설”은 오늘은 쉽니다.
저희의 페이스북에 저희의 글들을 찾아볼 수 있으니 들르세요. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=149736875073602#!/notes.php?id=100000018391388
중앙일보 블로그에도 있으며, 거기에서 동영상/ 음악도 감상하세요.
http://blog.koreadaily.com/media.asp?med_usrid=mentor2
작성일2012-11-11 15:29
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
