bc 466 737 plaintiff's motion & opposition to illegal corrupt order of 3-28-2012 p.31-35 ex 1-6

7/23/2019 Bc 466 737 Plaintiff's Motion & Opposition to Illegal Corrupt Order of 3-28-2012 p.31-35 Ex 1-6

1/14

12

3

4

56

78

9

1011121314151617181920212223

24

2526

27

28

courts and your "Oath of Office" that was "For Sale", based onJudicial Bribes to the Court!3) To "Overturn" the Final Judgment based on the clear and the"Abundance of Evidence" of False or Fraudulent Evidence supplied bythe court to get a Decision based on a Judicial Bribe to allowfalse evidence entered into the court for a Pay Off!

4) That Judge(s) DeVanon, Miller, and Commissioner Drewry on file,and a party to this formal complaint with the Commission onJudicial Performance be re-examined and re-evaluated based on theevidence on court record, and not on lies and false evidence thatwas never certified, verified, or confirmed as truthful.

5) That the Presiding Judge will Order the demand by law, to"Consolidation of Cases" in the above, and that the Presiding Judgewill issue and Order allowing the Plaintiff to amend his Complaintto allow Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1714.10,Civil Conspiracy by Officers of the Court.

6} That the Presiding Judge will Order that each of the Defendantspay the Plaintiff a sum equal to $1500.00 to defray the Cost ofwaisted time of Judicial Resources and the amount spent of JudicialEconomy. One of the Intended purposes of Paz, Mercado, andMacCarley filings of multiple complaints was to silence Plaintiffand to stop all criticism, and stop him to expose the selling ofdecisions. A SLAPP lawsuits are filed against people ororganizations because they have exercised their First Amendmentright to petition the government or speak out and expose judicialcorruption.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION & OPPOSITION TO ILLEGAL ORDER OF 3/28/2012


2/14

12

34

5

6

7

89

10

1112

131415161718

192021222324

25

26

27

28

VERIFICATIONVerification of Pleading (Code Civ. Proc., 446) Declaration underPenalty of Perjury Form(Code civ. Proc., 446, 2015.5)by Party Jose Castaneda in Case BC 466737CASE TITLE: JOSE CASTANEDA v. ESTATE OF ROBERT BERKE, Et AI, REALPARTY IN INTEREST: JUDGE RITA MILLER, COMMISSIONER DREWRY AND JUDGEDEVANONI" declare: Jose CastanedaI am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled matter.I have read the fore going (pleading, e.g., complaint) and know thecontents thereof.The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matterswhich are therein stated on information and belief, and, as tothose matters, I believe it to be true.Executed on April 1, 2012County of Los Angeles, California.I declare (or certify) under penalty of perjury that the foregoingis true and correct.

Jose Castaneda

SERVICE LIST



3/14

12

31) Estate of Robert BerkeLaw Office of Angela Proffitt Esq., 11755 Wilshire Blvd. 15th Floor,L.A. CA 90025

4 2) Jack K. Conway Esq., 2460 Huntington Drive, San Marino, CA 9110856

78

3) Sam Paz Esq., 5711 W. Slauson Avenue,# 100 Culver City, CA 90230

4) Lisa Marie MacCarley Esq., 3436 N. Verdugo Road, # 100, Glendale,CA 91208

9

105) Susana Castaneda, 1440 17th Street, Los Osos, CA 93402

11 116) Emahn Counts Esq., 70 S. Lake Avenue, Pasadena, CA 911011213141516171819202122

23

24252627

28

7) Sarah Lee Overton, 3801 Riverside Avenue, Ste 560, Riverside, CA92501

PROOF OF SERVICE



4/14

12

3

456

7

8

910

1112131415

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESBC 466737 Castaneda v. Estate of Robert BerkI am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of

California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to thewithin action; my home address is 123 W. Hammond Street,Pasadena, California 91103.

On April ,2012 I served by mail the following documentdescribed as:PLAINTIFF'S MOTION & OPPOSITION TO ILLEGAL ORDER OF 3/28/2012GRANTED WITH FALSE EVIDENCE.

On the interested parties in this action by placing a trucopy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postagethereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Pasadena,California, addressed as follows:

See page 33I am readily familiar with the practice of the collection

and processing of correspondence for mailing with the UnitedStates Postal Service.

16 IIVIA17 IIVIA18

, ] FAX to. ;>


5/14

12

34

56

7

8

9

10

1112

1314

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

EXHIBITS

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION & OPPOSITION TO ILLEGAL ORDER OF 3/28/2012 3


6/14

CASTANEDA v. ESTATE OF ROBERT BERKECASE NO.: BC466737HEARING: 03/28/12

At the February 21,2012 status conference in this matter, all pending motionswere continued. The Court rules as follows:

I. Defendants SONIA MERCADO and R. SAMUEL PAZ's motion for a findingthat plaintiff JOSE CASTANEDA is a vexatious litigant and to require a security isGRANTED. C.C.P. 391, 391.1.The vexatious litigant statutes (Code of Civil Procedure sections 391through 391.7) are designed to curb misuse of the court system by thosepersistent and obsessive litigants who, by repeatedly litigating the sameissues through groundless actions, waste the time and resources of thecourt system and other litigants._ Bravo v. Ismaj (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 211,220-21.Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subsection (b) defines a "vexatious litigant"as a person who does any of the following:(1) in the immediately preceding 7 year period, has commenced,prosecuted or maintained at least 5 litigations (other than small claims) whichhave been finally determined adversely or unjustifiably been permitted to remainpending for at least 2 years without having been brought to trial or hearing, or

(2) after a final determination, repeatedly re-litigates, in pro per, either thevalidity of the determination against the same defendants or the same claimsfinally determined, or '(3) in any litigation while appearing in pro per, repeatedly files

unmeritorious motions and pleadings, or engages in other frivolous tactics.

Plaintiff JOSE CASTANEDA has commenced several action l each arising out ofunderlying litigation regarding his brother (Luis Castaneda) a d his mother(Felicitas Castaneda) and their respective estates and the ha dling of thatlitigation by various attorneys. The Court takes judicial notic of case numbersGC044}45, GC039743, GC045202, YS017992 and GC0361 6, each of whichwas filed by plaintiff JOSE CASTANDA and subsequently dis issed.


7/14

The Court also take~ judicl~notice of certain ?.RQ!3alsiled by plaintiff (caseumbers B223549,\E32~~5Bfi, B223549,(8.2.2Z?1,)3195431 and S193392),which were subsequently dismissed and/or denied.Plaintiff meets the requirements of section 391(b)(1). He also falls withinsubsections (b)(2) and (3). He is attempting, by way of this action, to re-litigatethe same issues against these defendants. Moreover, the complaint itselfcontains allegations that are not actionable, and seeks relief that has alreadybeen requested and denied. See Demurrers (on file). Defendants havedemonstrated that plaintiff has no reasonable probability of prevailing (forpurposes of the subject motion).The Court hereby deems plaintiff JOSE CASTANEDA a vexatious litigant asdefined in section 391. Plaintiff may not file any new litigation without firstobtaining leave of court asset forth in section 391.7.Defendants' request for a bond is GRANTED. C.C.P. 391.1. Plaintiff has 30days from the hearing date, or until April 30, 2012, to post a bond in the amountof $50,000. If plaintiff fails to furnish security by that date, the action shall bedismissed. C.C.P. 391A.II. Plaintiff JOSE CASTANEDA's motion for sanctions based on defendants'improper motion re: vexatious litigant is DENIED.The motion appears to be an opposition to defendants' motion to deem plaintiff avexatious litigant. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his pattern of filing litigationis not frivolous or that he has a reasonable probability of prevailing.His request for sanctions is procedurally improper in that he failed to set forth theauthority under which sanctions are sought. Additionally, he failed to state theamount sought or against whom the sanctions should be levied. On that basis,the request must be denied for lack of notice. In re Marriage of Reese &Guy (1999) 73 Cal.AppAth 1214. For the reasons noted above, the request forsanctions is denied on the merits as well.

II I.-X. The remaining matters on calendar include (1) plaintiff's motion toconsolidate, (2) plaintiff's petition to amend the complaint, (3)-(8) variousdemurrers. Those matters are continued to n1[))>> Ii-' , to be heard afterlaintiff posts his bond. I


8/14

Case SummaryCase Number: GC044745ESTATE OF FELICITAS CASTANEDA VS. SUSANA CASTANEDAFiling Date: 03/0112010Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)Status: Dismissed - Other 06/24/2010

Future HearingsNoneDocuments Filed IProceeding Information

PartiesCASTANEDA ALONZO MANUEL - DefendantCASTANEDA GONZALO - DefendantCASTANEDA JOSE-ADMINISTRATOR - Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro PerCASTANEDA MARTHA - DefendantCASTANEDASUSANA-DefundantDOES 1 TO 10 - DefendantESTATE OF FELICITAS CASTANEDA - Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro PerFANGFRANCO-DerendantLISA MACCARLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW - Attorney for DefendantRAMIREZ EVEL YN CHRISTINA - Defendant

Case Information I Party Information I Proceeding InformationDocuments Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)Click on any of the below link( s) to see documents filed on ~efore the date indicated:03/02/201007/2312010 Order (granting demurrer to complaint)r Y. H!R~T..2


9/14

"$

Case SummaryCase Number: GC039743HAIFEN YE AKA JEAN LUCERO VS. GARFIELD MEDICAL CENTERFiling Date: 10/19/2007Case Type: Med Malpractice (Drs & Surgeons) (General Jurisdiction)Status: Dismissed - Other 03/21/2008


PartiesAKA LUCERO JEAN - PlaintiffDOES 1 TO 100 - DefendantDUMMIT BOCHHOLZ & TRAPP - Attorney for DefendantGARFIELD MEDICAL CENTER - DefendantLAW OFFICE OF GORDON EDELSTEIN KREP ACK - Attorney for PlaintiffLUCERO HAIFEN YE - PlaintiffSCHMIDT & VOILES - Attorney for DefendantWANG M.D. HAIPING - Defendant

Case Information IParty Information IProceeding InformationDocuments Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)03/21/2008 Request for Dismissal-Partial (DISMISSAL ENTERED, AS TOGARFIELD MEDICAL CENTER, WIOUT PREJ. THIS DISMISSES THE ENTIREACTION)Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff03/14/2008 Request for Dismissal-Partial (DISMISSAL ENTERED, AS TODEFENDANT HAIPING WANG M.D. WIPREJ.)Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff


10/14

Janet Eiko Trapp - #143991Current Status: ActiveThis member is active and may practice law in California.See below for more details.Profile InformationThefollowing information isfrom the official records of The State Bar of California.BarNumber:

Address:

143991Dummit, Buchholz & Phone Number:Trapp Fax Number:11755 Wilshire Blvd15th FL .Los Angeles, CA 90025 e-mall:Map it

(310) 479~0944(310) 312-3836Not Available

County:District:

Sections:

Los AngelesDistrict 2None

UndergraduateSchool:Law School:

Dniv of CaliforniaRiverside; CAWhittier Coll SOL; CA

Status HistoryEffective Date Status ChangePresent Active12/11/1989 Admitted to The State Bar of CaliforniaExplanation of member statusActions Affecting Eligibility to Practice LawDisciplinary and Related ActionsOverview of the attorney discipline system.This member has no public record of discipline.

Administrative ActionsThis member has no public record of administrative actions.

EXHtOiT a


11/14

Attorney SearchHoward David Krepack - #61777Current Status: ActiveThis member is active and may practice law in CaliforniaSee below for more details.Profile InformationThefollowing information isfrom the official records of The State Bar of California.BarNumber:

Address:

County:District:Sections:

61777Gordon Edelstein etal3580 Wilshire Blvd#1800Los Angeles, CA90010Map itLos AngelesDistrict 2None

Phone Number:Fax Number:

e-mail:

UndergraduateSchool:Law School:

(213) 739-7000(213) 386-1971

Not Available

Univ of California at LosAngeles; CA

UCLA SOL; Los Angeles CAStatus HistoryEffective Date Status ChangePresent Active12/20/1974 Admitted to The State Bar of CaliforniaExplanation of member statusActions Affecting Eligibility to Practice LawDisciplinary and Related ActionsOverview of the attorney discipline system.This member has no public record of discipline.

fXH')UJ :3


12/14

Case SummaryCase Number: GC045202ESTATE OF FELICITAS CASTANEDA VS. THE LAW FIRM OF JACKK.Filing Date: 05/10/2010Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)Status: Other Judgment 12/29/2010

Future HearingsNoneDocuments Filed I Proceeding Information

PartiesCONWAY JACK K. - Attorney for DefendantDOES 1-1000 - DefendantJACK K. CONWAY ESQ. - DefendantJOSE CASTANEDA - Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro PerTHE LAW FIRM OF JACK K. CONWAY - Defendant

Case Information IParty Information IProceeding InformationDocuments Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:11/04/2010 05/1 0/20 1008/24/2011 NTC. Req. Prep. ofRept. on Appeal (AMENDED AUGMENTATION)Filed by Clerk04/22/2011 Notice (NOTICE TO PARTIES RE FEE FOR CLERK S TRANSCRIPTON APPEAL)Filed by Clerk04/0812011 Notice (TO REPORTERS TO PREPARE TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL )Filed by Clerk02/08/2011 Request for Judicial Notice

fXHI8if4, JI ,


13/14

Case Summary

Case Number: YS017992JOSE CASTANEDA VS DANIEL PAPASFiling Date: 03/10/2008Case Type: Civil Harassment (General Jurisdiction)Status: Dism Lack ofProsecution-Petn ole 04/01/2008

Future HearingsNoneDocuments Filed I Proceeding Information

PartiesCASTANEDA JOSE - Petitioner In Pro-PerPAPAS DANIEL - Respondent In Pro-per

c,

Case Information IParty Information IProceeding InformationDocuments Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)03/27/2008 Proof of Service (party served Daniel Papas. )Filed by Petitioner In Pro-Per03/1012008 Pet for Injunctive Ord-Harrassment

Case Information I Party Information IDocuments FiledProceedings Held (proceeding dates listed in descending order)04/0112008 at 08:30 am in Department INGN, William Torres, PresidingOSC re Prelim. Inj. and TRO (PETITIONER OSCITRO.) -Matter Placed OffCalendar

Case Information I Party Information IDocuments Filed I Proceeding Information

EXHIB~1-5


14/14

Case SummaryCae Number: GC036176'JOSECASTANHDA liS. SON1AMERCADOFiling Date: 10/26/2005Case Type: Legal Malpractice (General Jurisdiction)Status: Other Judgment 03/0312006


PartieCASTANEDA FELICITAS - PlaintiffCASTANEDA JOSE - PlaintiffLAW OFFICE OF JOSE CASTANEDA - Attorney for PlaintiffMERCADO SONIA - Defendant

Case Information IParty Information IProceeding InformationDocuments Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)01/26/2006 Reply (in support to demurrer)Filed by Attorney for Defendant01126/2006 Notice (correction and clarification of hearing date)Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per01124/2006 ResponseFiled by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per01112/2006 Declaration (AND RESPONSE TO DEMURRER)Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff01/10/2006 Miscellaneous-Other (DECLARATION ETC )Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per01104/2006 Demurrer :y

E XM 1,9,n ~j r;.~~.:..;

"" I Of I