Convalescent Homes, Inc., 159 Cal. App. 3 509,524 (1984).
The findings should not be
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
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
Grossman’s objections should be “specific”.
Ripani v. Liberty Loan Corp, 95 Cal. App. 3 603, 615 (1979)
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
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-