1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

David Bernis 3244 Winton Road South H-32 Rochester NY 14623 Wendy M. Mantell Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1840 Century Park East Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Gary Kurtz 20335 Ventura Blvd Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 A. J. Weberman, 318-3rd Ave NYC 917-374-7024 Email ajweberman@verizon.net Attorney pro se SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) Case No.: LC 094563 ) ) DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO GARY ALAN KURTZ, Plaintiff, vs. ALAN JULES WEBERMAN Defendant, pro se ) DISMISS; MEMORANDUM ) OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ) IN SUPPORT THEREOF ) ) ) ) Motion For Dismissal -1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Hearing on this motion scheduled Friday October 19, 2012 8:30 AM in Dept NW D at 6230 Sylmar Ave, Van Nuys, CA. 91401

This Motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Alan Jules Weberman, and on such oral argument and evidence that may be presented at the hearing of this Motion.

ARGUMENT: This trial is moot because the California Superior Court has no jurisdiction over David Bernis, who is not a Resident of California nor has any business interests there so this court cannot seize his property. There is no longer a substantive issue. FACTS On 08/15/2011 Summons Filed Filed by Plaintiff in Pro Per naming A. J. Weberman and numerous John Does as defendants in an attempt to seize the URLs ajweberman.com jewishdefense.org dylanology.org steverombom.org acid-trip.org yippiemuseum.org

as payment for judgment lodged against the judgment debtor.

Motion For Dismissal -2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

HISTORY First we must ask how that judgment came about? Defendant Weberman was about to enter a jurisdictional defense when Judge Michael Harwin stated in open court that he was a member of the New York Bar Association and would move to New York to make sure this Defendant was convicted of libel. Defendant, unaware that if he made any other motion other than a Motion to Quash the summons on jurisdictional grounds or a Motion to Strike he was be recognizing the jurisdiction of the Courts and negating his lack of jurisdiction defense. Defendant was played like a violin by Judge Harwin in a weasely maneuver unworthy of a Superior Court Judge.

Defendant’s case was assigned to Judge James Kaddo, whose daughter alleged he had ties to the Hezb’allah and who previously defended Palestinian terrorists pro bono. Judge Kaddo was biased against defendant who is Jewish Nationalist and a member of the Jewish Defense Organization.

When the Defendant failed to set a hearing date on a Motion, as he was unfamiliar with judicial procedure, rather than adjudicating the issues on their merits, Judge Kaddo issued a one and a half million dollar default judgment based to a procedural error by a pro se defendant.

Motion For Dismissal -3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Defendant Bernis claimed the California Superior Court lacked This was an outright lie. Anyone can find out who owns a URL by going into INTERNIC WHO IS. Rombom, who billed himself as an internet expert, knew this. Plaintiff, aware this was part of a strategy to seize these URLs without due process of law filed a motion naming David Bernis as the owner of these URL’s and stating that Mr. Bernis let him use them in order to insure Defendant’s right of free speech would not be violated. Plaintiff Kurtz was able to obtain a TRO and OSC re preliminary injunction based on a declaration by Steve Rombom, who was denied a PI license in California due to an arrest for Witness Intimidation and Impersonating and FBI Agent. This order froze The URLs in question. This was granted by Judge Micheal Latin on the basis that the true owners of the URLs could not be located and had to be named as John Does who were not servable. Defendant was part of the Civil Right Movement in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s and had read about “negro” defendants being systematically deprived of their rights by racist courts in the South. Judge’s Harwin and Kaddo gave him a chance to experience this first hand.

Motion For Dismissal -4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

jurisdiction over him. This Motion was granted by Judge Maria Stratton in a separate captioned matter. Her Honor’s determination is attached as Exhibit A.

As a result this Court has no legal right to seize Mr. Bernis’s property and to do so would violate the due process clause of the California and United States Constitution. The only possible basis for doing so would be for the Court to rule that because Mr. Weberman posts on websites that utilize the URLs in question the URLs are his property.

This is what Mr. Rombom, who was convicted of terrorism and sentenced to prison (see EXHIBIT B) claimed in his declaration. This argument is invalid and ruling in its favor would mean that because Mr. Weberman posts on Scrib’d, Issu, Slideshare and other websites that are not registered in his name these websites also belong to him and can be seized by Gary Kurtz. Plaintiff could hypothetically seize the URL facebook.com since Weberman posts on Facebook on an almost daily basis.

POINTS OF LAW

The Code of Civil Procedure § 708.210, reads: If a third person has possession or control of property in which the judgment debtor has an interest or is indebted to the

Motion For Dismissal -5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

judgment debtor, the judgment creditor may bring an action against the third person to have the interest or debt applied to the satisfaction of the money judgment.

This is in line with procedural due process - the guarantee that the government will not deprive a person of property without first giving the person some amount of legal process. Legal process means some kind of legal notice or opportunity for a hearing. This complaint should be dismissed because David Bernis, who holds the legal leases on these URLs, cannot be afforded due process, because the Superior Court of California lacks jurisdiction. Since the Court lacks jurisdiction in respect to Mr. Bernis, seizing these URLs and turning them over

to Mr. Kurtz would be tantamount to theft. It should be noted that Mr. Kurtz has not appealed Judge Stratton’s ruling. The proper venue for this case in New York State as two of the defendants reside there.

ADDITIONAL POINTS OF LAW

Lack of Hearing. "[S]ome form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property [or liberty] interest."(Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). "Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard." Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 223, 233 (1863). This

Motion For Dismissal -6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

right is a "basic aspect of the duty of government to follow a fair process of decision making when it acts to deprive a person of his possessions. The purpose of this requirement is not only to ensure abstract fair play to the individual. Its purpose, more particularly, is to protect his use and possession of property from arbitrary encroachment. (Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80-81 (1972). See Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 170-71 (1951) (Justice Frankfurter concurring). Thus, the notice of hearing and the opportunity to be heard "must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." (Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) Since the Court lacks jurisdiction a hearing cannot be held. THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws.

DECLARATION OF A. J. WEBERMAN

I, A. J. Weberman declare: 1. I am the defendant and judgment debtor in this action. The facts set forth in this declaration are based on my personal knowledge, and if called and sworn as a witness in this matter, I could and would testify to the following. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is the Ruling of Judge Maria Stratton. EXHIBIT B is

25 Motion For Dismissal -7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

a true reproduction of an article involving Steve Rombom. I do not own the URLs I question nor do I pay Mr. Bernis the approximately $50 a year it costs to lease them. Defendant has not produced any tangible evidence that I own these leases.

CONCLUSION

The proper venue for a Complaint against URL owner David Bernis would be in the State of New York, not California. Any action against Mr. Bernis would be extra-judicial as the California Courts have no jurisdiction in this matter.

Dated this September 6, 2012

Wendy M. Mantell

Greenberg Traurig, LLP 17 1840 Century Park East 18 Suite 1900 19 Los Angeles, CA 20 90067-2121 21 22 23 24 25 Gary Kurtz 20335 Ventura Blvd Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA Motion For Dismissal -8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

91364

A. J. Weberman, 318-3rd Ave NYC 917-374-7024 ajweberman@verizon.net Attorney pro se

David Bernis 3244 Winton Road South H-32 Rochester NY 14623

Motion For Dismissal -9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

David Bernis 3244 Winton Road South H-32 Rochester NY 14623 Wendy M. Mantell Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1840 Century Park East Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121

Gary Kurtz 20335 Ventura Blvd Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 A. J. Weberman, 318 3rd Ave NYC 917-374-7024 Email ajweberman@verizon.net Attorney pro se SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) Case No.: LC 094563 ) ) ) Notice of Motion To Vacate ) ) Default Judgment ) ) ) )

GARY ALAN KURTZ, Plaintiff, vs. ALAN JULES WEBERMAN Defendant, pro se

Hearing on this motion scheduled Friday October 19, 2012 8:30 AM in Dept NW D at 6230 Sylmar Ave, Van Nuys, CA. 91401 ARGUMENT On 06/26/2012 A DEFAULT WAS ENTERED: “Default entered - as to MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT - 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

David Bernis dba Web Hosting and Design Services, Rochester web services, Jamaica web services, Rochester web services, Domain Registration and Transfer Services, Best Price filed by attorney-plaintiff.”

ARGUMENT: BECAUSE THIS COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT BERNIS, THE COURT SHOULD SET ASIDE ANY DEFAULT OR DEFAULT JUDGMENT.

Since Judge Maria Stratton ruled that David Bernis is beyond this Court’s jurisdiction (see EXHIBIT 1) this Court being an arm of the Superior Court of the State of California has no legal power to deprive Mr. Bernis of his property. If Mr. Bernis property is seized the ruling will violate the most basic precepts of American jurisprudence. Additionally Mr. Bernis was never served in this captioned matter so how can he default?

POINTS OF LAW

California courts are empowered to exercise personal jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the State or Federal Constitution (CCP §410.10). In this regard, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant only when the defendant has such minimum contacts with the forum state that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" (Felix v. Bomoro Kommanditgesellschaft (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 106, 111 [citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)]; MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT - 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). Moreover, minimum contacts are measured on a case-bycase basis and the ultimate test is whether "California has a sufficient relationship with the [particular] defendant and litigation [as] to make it reasonable ("fair play")..." to require the defendant to defend the litigation in California (Weil & Brown, Cal.Prac.Guide: Civ.Pro.Before Trial, The Rutter Group 1999) §3:202 at 3-41.2. Additionally, any default or default judgment entered without jurisdiction over the defendant is necessarily void.

DECLARATION OF ALAN WEBERMAN

I am the defendant and judgment debtor in this action. The facts set forth in this declaration are based on my personal knowledge, and if called and sworn as a witness in this matter, I could and would testify to the following on penalty of perjury. I worked on David Bernis’s case as a paralegal. He was never served in this captioned matter. There is no document on file that indicates he was served. He was served in the captioned matter LC095923 but the service was quashed. This Default Motion may be part of a plan by the plaintiff to seize property while a faulty default motion is in place. In another case Judge Lisa Hart Cole ruled that a faulty Default and Default Judgment should be set aside.

Case

Number:

SC092414

Hearing

Date:

August

21,

2007 Dept: X RAMBAM v. ENOM SC092414 Defendant MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT - 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Weberman's MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT is granted. CCP 473 is remedial in nature and must be liberally applied. Default judgments are generally disfavored, and whenever reasonably possible, cases should be decided upon their timely merits. relief Finally, from where a defendant and seeks has a be

the

judgment if any

meritorious

defense,

doubt,

should

resolved in favor of the motion to set aside the judgment. Also, it should be noted that entry of the default was sought one day early. The amended complaint was served on 2/10/07 (POS shows mailed copy only) and the response was due by 3/22/07 (30 days plus 10 for service outside

California; February has only 28 days). Default was sought and entered on March 21, 2007.

Question: Does the report of the reciever (sic) moot this motion? 8/21/2007

The receiver had not seized all the URLs so Judge Cole kept this bogus default in place until my property (more URL’s) was seized by Kurtz and his client Steve Rombom. Then Kurtz made a Motion for Dismissal which Judge Cole granted leaving me no way to appeal. I was railroaded and I hope this does not repeat itself.

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT - 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CONCLUSION

For all of the above reasons, California does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant Bernis; therefore, Defendant’s motion to vacate default and/or default judgment should be granted.

Alan Jules Weberman

Dated this September 6, 2012 _______________________ Wendy M. Mantell Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1840 Century Park East Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Gary Kurtz 20335 Ventura Blvd Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 A. J. Weberman, 318 3rd Ave NYC 917-374-7024 ajweberman@verizon.net Attorney pro se David Bernis 3244 Winton Road South Rochester NY 14623

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT - 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Wendy M. Mantell Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1840 Century Park East Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 David Bernis 3244 Winton Road South H-32 Rochester NY 14623 Gary Kurtz 20335 Ventura Blvd Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 A. J. Weberman, 318 3rd Ave NYC 917-374-7024 Email ajweberman@verizon.net Attorney pro se SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

GARY ALAN KURTZ, Plaintiff, vs. ALAN JULES WEBERMAN Defendant, pro se

) Case No.: LC 094563 ) ) Notice of Motion for Order ) Quashing Temporary Restraining ) Order. ) ) ) )

Notice of Motion for Order Quashing Temporary Restraining Order 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hearing on this motion scheduled Friday October 19, 2012 8:30 AM in Dept NW D at 6230 Sylmar Ave, Van Nuys, CA. 91401 Now comes the judgment debtor and asks this court to Quash the Temporary Restraining order signed by Judge Michael A. Latin on August 17, 2011 enjoining David Bernis from transferring certain URL’s in his possession. (SEE EXHIBIT ONE)

Argument: Order Predicated on False Assumption Judge Latin’s order was predicated on a false premise. Plaintiff Gary Kurtz alleged that the owner of these URL’s was impossible to locate and listed them as “John Does.” This was an effort to deprive owner David Bernis of his property without due process of law because it is not possible to serve a “John Doe” with a complaint. This is from Kurtz’s supporting motion:

“4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or as defendants herein named as Does 1 through 10 inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff who, therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based thereon alleges that the Doe defendants are persons who hold real and/or personal property for Weberman in order to prevent plaintiff, and other similarly situated judgment creditors, from collecting debts Weberman owes.” Plaintiff cited the Declaration of Private Investigator Steven Rombom, who had been denied a California Private Investigator’s license due to a previous arrest. Rombom swore that he could not locate the owner of the websites despite his credentials as an
Notice of Motion for Order Quashing Temporary Restraining Order 2

1 2 3 4

internet sleuth when even the novice internet researcher knows all one has to do is do to INTERNIC Who Is and type in the URL in question. ARGUMENT: THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DAVID BERNIS, WHO IS NOT A RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA NOR HAS ANY BUSINESS INTERESTS THERE.

After this Defendant filed a Motion that revealed the name of the owner of the URL’s in question Plaintiff served owner David Bernis with a Complaint charging him with conspiracy to liable him. The Code of Civil Procedure § 708.210, reads: “If a third person has possession or control of property in which the judgment debtor has an interest or is indebted to the judgment debtor, the judgment creditor may bring an action against the third person to have the interest or debt applied to the satisfaction of the money judgment.” This is in line with procedural due process - the guarantee that the government will not deprive a person of property without first giving the person some amount of legal process. Legal process means some kind of legal notice or opportunity for a hearing. I object to the continuation of the temporary injunction on the grounds that David Bernis, who holds the leases on these URLs, cannot be afforded due process, because the Superior Court of California lacks jurisdiction. Adjudicating the Bernis Complaint was assigned to Judge Maria Stratton who ruled that the Summons should be quashed on the
Notice of Motion for Order Quashing Temporary Restraining Order 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

grounds that the California Superior Court lacked jurisdiction. If the Court lacked jurisdiction over Bernis then it logically Judge Latin erred in issuing any sort of Order that involved David Bernis. (SEE EXHIBIT TWO)

POINTS OF LAW Lack of Hearing. "[S]ome form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property [or liberty] interest."(Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). "Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard." Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 223, 233 (1863).

This right is a "basic aspect of the duty of government to follow a fair process of decision making when it acts to deprive a person of his possessions. The purpose of this requirement is not only to ensure abstract fair play to the individual. Its purpose, more particularly, is to protect his use and possession of property from arbitrary encroachment. (Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80-81 (1972). See Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 170-71 (1951) (Justice Frankfurter concurring). Thus, the notice of hearing and the opportunity to be heard "must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." (Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) Since the Court lacks jurisdiction a hearing cannot be held. THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS “SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
Notice of Motion for Order Quashing Temporary Restraining Order 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws.”

DECLARATION OF A. J. WEBERMAN

I, A. J. Weberman declare: 1. I am the defendant and judgment debtor in this action. The facts set forth in this declaration are based on my personal knowledge, and if called and sworn as a witness in this matter, I could and would testify to the following. Attached hereto as Exhibit "1" is a true and correct copy of my the Preliminary Injunction of Judge Latin. Attached as Exhibit “2” is the Ruling of Judge Stratton.

CONCLUSION The proper venue for a Complaint against URL owner David Bernis would be in the State of New York, not California. Any action against Mr. Bernis would be extra-judicial as the California Courts have no jurisdiction in this matter and would violate the most basic precepts of America jurisprudence.

ALAN JULES WEBERMAN pro se Dated September 6, 2012

Wendy M. Mantell Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1840 Century Park East
Notice of Motion for Order Quashing Temporary Restraining Order 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121

Gary Kurtz 20335 Ventura Blvd Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91364

A. J. Weberman, 318 3rd Ave NYC 917-374-7024 ajweberman@verizon.net Attorney pro se

David Bernis 3244 Winton Road South H-32 Rochester NY 14623

Notice of Motion for Order Quashing Temporary Restraining Order 6

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful