Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
PROPOSED STATEMENT ON APPEAL 2.13.2011

PROPOSED STATEMENT ON APPEAL 2.13.2011

Ratings: (0)|Views: 139 |Likes:
Published by msf31538

More info:

Published by: msf31538 on Feb 20, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Martin S. Friedlander (Bar # 36828)10350 Wilshire Blvd.Suite 603Los Angeles, California 90024Tel. (310) 435-1519Fax (310) 278-7330 Attorneys for Defendant Anthony GrossmanSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESPRO VALUE PROPERTIES, INC., et alPlaintiff,vs. ANTHONY GROSSMAN; DOES 1 TO 10Defendants.CASE NO. 10B01962
GROSSMAN’S PROPOSEDSTATEMENT ON APPEAL.JUDGE: Christine EwellINTRODUCTION
The Court’s statement of decision must explain the legal and factual basis of thedecision “as to each of the principal controverted issues” at trial as “listed in the Request”
.CCP Sec. 632 
. As shall be demonstrated below the Court failed in its duties. A “principal”or material issue is one “which is relevant and essential to the judgment and closely anddirectly related to the trial court’s determination of the ultimate issues in the case.
Kuffel v.Seaside Oil Co. 69 Cal. App. 3 555, 565 (1977)
A statement of decision should set forth
rd 
ultimate facts rather than evidentiary facts.
Lynch v. Cook 148 Cal. App. 3 1072 (1983). It 
rd 
should provide a narrative explanation of the judge’s reasoning. People v. Casa Blanca
PROPOSED STATEMENT ON APPEAL
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Convalescent Homes, Inc., 159 Cal. App. 3 509,524 (1984).
The findings should not be
rd 
so “ultimate” that they are simply legal conclusions. E.g., findings that a “contract existed”between the parties; or that “coverage existed” under an insurance policy. Such findings“make it extremely difficult if not impossible for the reviewing court to ascertain the basisfor the trial court’s conclusion that “coverage existed”.
Employers Cas. Co. V.Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Group, Cal. App. 3 462, 473 (1980). Reversible error results
rd 
where a statement of decision “fails to make findings on a material issue which would fairly disclose the trial court’s determination”. Sperber v. Robinson, 26 Cal. App. 4 736, 745 
th
(1994).
Grossman’s objections should be “specific”.
Ripani v. Liberty Loan Corp, 95 Cal. App. 3 603, 615 (1979)
rd 
The undersigned contends that what this court conducted, calling it a “trial” was afarce and certainly did not meet the minimum expectations of “Due Process of Law”required by the 14 Amendment. This Court overruled Grossman’s request that all
th
witnesses take the witness stand as is required in every court that this writer attended over his 40 year career and certainly every Federal Trial the Trial Court attended as a Chief Prosecutor for the US Attorney’s office for the Central District of California, major crimesdivision. This Court required both witnesses and attorneys to question the witness from thecounsel table, which demeaned the court process as we all have known it throughouthistory. That irregular process prejudiced defense counsel since he had difficulty inhearing the questions and answers, which proceeded in “machine gun” style, partiallyprecluding Evidence Code
 
objections to be raised. This court arbitrarily denied Grossmana jury trial as timely requested by Grossman, arbitrarily denied Grossman’s statutory andconstitutional right to enforce validly served Subpoenas to extremely important andrelevant witnesses who had first hand knowledge of the “irregularities” in the foreclosureprocedure leading to the illegal sale to Pro Value. The documents and testimony of theTrustee who issued the NOS, NOD, and allegedly conducted the “sale” “rigged” in favor of Pro Value would have defeated Pro Value’s case.This Court “stifled” Grossman’s counsel from posing relevant questions to the
PROPOSED STATEMENT ON APPEAL-2-
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
witnesses, including his narrative, by admonishing counsel to “shoosh” as a polite way of refusing to adhere to the Evidence Code and the Constitution
. Friedlander was duly “shooshed” under pain of contempt. This Court abused it power by stifling Defensecounsel. It appeared to defense counsel that this Court used “time constraints” to“trump” justice and “due process”. No reasonable bench trial could have beenconducted in three 45 minute segments, especially one that required documentary evidence that needed foundation and relevance. Friedlander thus made an offer of  proof but there was no court reporter to record that process to preserve the record on appeal. Thus Friedlander, on almost a daily basis, submitted memorandums of law to assist the court in following the law.
THE REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF DECISION.
Pursuant to CCP Sec. 632 and CRC Rule 632, Defendant Anthony Grossmanrequested in writing that the Court issue a written Statement of Decision explaining thefactual and legal basis for its decision with respect to the following controverted issues:1. The factual and legal basis of this Court Quashing the Subpoenas served on theSeaside witnesses, in a “sua sponte” manner, when the law required a Motion to quash,not an objection.
The court failed to do so.
2. The factual and legal basis as to whether or not Anthony Grossman was properlyserved with a 3 day Notice to Quit as required by statute.
To be discussed later.
3. The factual and legal basis as to whether or not Pro Value was a bona fide purchaser.
The court refused and failed to do so on the basis of relevancy based on theevidence that it claims it properly excluded. However the court did receive inevidence the Lis Pendens recorded by Grossman, which put Pro Value onConstructive Notice, which, by itself would have precluded Pro Value from being aBFP. The Court failed to deal with the legal consequences of that Lis Pendens in thecontext of a BFP. Carleen Riojas, the office manager’s testimony was worthless.She testified that she did not recall the telephone conversation that she had with
PROPOSED STATEMENT ON APPEAL-3-

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->