Electronically Filed

MATTHEW RAFAT (pro se) by Superior Court of CA,

3974 Acapulco Dr
Campbell CA, 95008 County of Santa Clara,
408 379 6069 on 5/3/2021 12:00 AM
Reviewed By: K. Nguyen
Case #21CH009964
Envelope: 6359211
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY

TECHNOLOGY CREDIT UNION, ) Case No.: 21CH009964

)
Petitioner, ) OBJECTION
)
)
v. )
) Hearing: June 1, 2021
MATTHEW MEHDI RAFAT, ) Dept 4
) 9:00AM
)
Respondent. )
_____________________________________ )
)
)
)
)
)
)

On April 30, 2021, Petitioner emailed an intent to file a reply brief in this matter: “We
will file our reply to your opposition when it is due…” Respondent preemptively objects to
Petitioner’s use of a reply. On information and belief, the TRO/WRO process is designed as a
separate, expedited process from regular civil litigation. Once a court allows Petitioner additional
briefs not contemplated by the legislature—or, for that matter, any of the Judicial Council’s own
online guides—it renders the TRO/WRO process similar to ordinary litigation but without an
opportunity for Respondent to utilize its benefits, such as discovery.
Since CCP 527.6-527.8 are typically discussed together, Respondent cites Kenne v.
Stennis, 230 [Link].4th 953 (2014), to support his comments above:
Another important consideration is that a section 527.6 petition is not an ordinary
civil action. The statute provides for an action to be completed in a matter of weeks

1
_____________________________________________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
 and incorporates an expectation that victims may often seek relief without the
benefit of a lawyer. (See § 527.6, subds. (d) [trial court makes an ‘independent
inquiry’ into the facts] & (m) [Judicial Council forms to be ‘simple and concise’].)
Permitting a malicious prosecution claim to follow an unsuccessful section 527.6
petition would frustrate this streamlined procedure.

If the court is unfamiliar with Kenne v. Stennis, 230 [Link].4th 953 (2014), it may
benefit from reading the case in its entirety to understand Respondent’s limited remedies against
a totally frivolous and intentionally malicious use of the CCP 527.8 process. Under current case
law, Respondent’s remedies herein include only the following: 1) this court’s expected
decision/order expressly revoking the court’s previous order and barring Petitioner from
receiving attorneys’ fees and costs arising from or related to this matter under CC 1717 or
otherwise; 2) the court’s ability to refer Petitioner’s attorneys to the State Bar; and 3) the court’s
ability to refer Maria Leza to the district attorney due to her perjury in the original petition.
This matter is not the usual “he said, she said” situation. Two videos of the alleged
“assault” exist, because Petitioner Tech CU’s premises have security cameras. Respondent has
already made public his video and given Petitioner notice of his video in early April 2021, after
which opposing counsels should have agreed to dismiss the matter. (See attached letters sent to
counsel.) Petitioner will have an opportunity at the hearing to show its video to the court and take
advantage of a neutral fact-finder. If Petitioner fails to provide its own video at the hearing,
Respondent respectfully reminds this court of Evidence Code 412: “If weaker and less
satisfactory evidence is offered when it was within the power of the party to produce stronger
and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust.”

Dated: May 2, 2021

___________________________
MATTHEW RAFAT

“All laws are based upon the effort to preserve civilization… Justice is a balance set up among
mankind… When justice is something familiar… the world persists.”

– Abu Zayd, Abdur-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Khaldun al-Hadrami aka Ibn Khaldun

2
_____________________________________________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
April 6, 2021

ORIGINAL SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL

NOT CONFIDENTIAL – WILL BE PUBLICIZED ON

[Link] AND ELSEWHERE

Venus Burns
Joseph & Cohen Professional Corporation
1855 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Main Phone: (415) 817 9200
[Link]

Dear Attorney Burns:

It’s not every day I get to write a letter to someone who behaves like her
namesake on The Simpsons, so I relish this opportunity to explain how
NOT to expose your firm to risks of malicious prosecution claims. The
many ways a workplace restraining order would fail have already been
discussed in detail, but I attach the email I sent in response to your voice
message so we can all understand how badly you failed to do a proper
investigation into the facts.

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t be so condescending, but you caused me to delay

eating my In ‘N Out burger so I could respond to your message, and no one
puts In ‘N Out in the corner. (R.I.P. Patrick Swayze.) Also, your firm lists
you as a “Senior Associate” and—apparently this is NOT a joke—a “skilled
litigator.” Were you a fresh law school graduate, I’d be more polite, but you,
madam, are a full-fledged officer of the court—whether you like it or not—
and that portends certain responsibilities.

First, before you call someone telling him you “will” file a WRO and an ex
parte motion, which forces him to spend several hours of time and thus
attorneys’ fees researching and responding to your claims—all of which
may be claimed whether or not you actually file the WRO—you should call
the person and get his side of the story. This would save you substantial
embarrassment when your client isn’t forthright and, as mentioned, would
give your malpractice carrier greater longevity. Had you said you were
3
_____________________________________________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
inquiring into details in order to determine whether to pursue a WRO, you
would have preserved your firm’s reputation. Oh, well.

Second, had you done even a cursory investigation into the facts, you
would have known Tech CU had no case here. In fact, you can’t even meet
a single one of the elements of CCP 527.8 based on publicly available
evidence. When you are watching the YouTube video I linked in my email
to you, listen carefully. You hear that sound? It’s the sound of your
malpractice carrier crying.

Third, I called you today to chat. Two times. The first time, I was put on
hold for several minutes and gave up. The second time, I think someone
hung up on me, because I stayed on the line, heard a click, and then the
line went dead. This brings us to our final lesson: when you fail to do a
proper investigation into the facts, at least have the decency to pick up the
phone. Maybe you’re a swell person. I have no idea. Maybe you’re not
clinically insane. I have no idea. Maybe Thomas Jefferson Law School in
San Diego, California—your alma mater—should be proud of you. I have
no idea. All I know is that every day your firm doesn’t notify me of its intent
not to pursue this specious claim is a day I have to incur more time and
thus attorneys’ fees defending myself.

Cheerio,

Matthew Rafat
3974 Acapulco Dr.
Campbell, CA 95008-3804

4
_____________________________________________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
April 27, 2021

ORIGINAL SENT BY MAIL

NOT CONFIDENTIAL – RELATED TO CASE 21CH009964

NOT A NEGOTIATION, NOT A SETTLEMENT OFFER, AND NOT

CONSENT TO ANY SUBSEQUENT ACTION

Jonathan M. Cohen
Venus Burns
Joseph & Cohen Professional Corporation
1855 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Main Phone: (415) 817 9200
[Link]

Dear Attorneys Cohen & Burns:

This morning, I woke up thinking your firm had perhaps gained common
sense and withdrawn its frivolous petition. Lo and behold, upon searching
the court’s website, no request for dismissal has been entered. While I
admire your willingness to knowingly present perjury to the court—perjury
that has been proven both legally as well as factually in my response filed
April 14, 2021—I remain curious regarding your strategy. I can only
assume it involves suitcases of unmarked bills or videos of local judges in
flagrante delicto, but I hope I am wrong.

In any case, let’s review our current circumstances so there is no dispute in

the days ahead.

1. Both Jonathan M. Cohen and Venus Burns are and were actively
involved in bringing the civil petition referenced above and are
continuing the petition;

2. No reasonable person or attorney—even assuming a severe mental

disability—would have believed, after April 14, 2021, that s/he had
reasonable grounds to continue the petition;

5
_____________________________________________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
 3. Joseph & Cohen P.C. brought and maintained the petition to silence
speech critical of Petitioner Tech CU and/or to seek attorneys’ fees
under a one-sided union member provision that is unconscionable
under CC 1670.5 due to Petitioner’s perjury;

4. Petitioner’s and Petitioner’s lawyers’ conduct was a substantial factor

in causing harm to Respondent, who was “compelled to defend
against a fabricated claim which not only subjects him to the panoply
of psychological pressures most civil defendants suffer, but also the
additional stress of attempting to resist a suit commenced out of spite
or ill will, often magnified by slanderous allegations in the pleadings.”
[Merlet v. Rizzo (1998) 64 [Link].4th 53, 59]

Cheerio,

Matthew Rafat

Enclosures: Proposed Order

6
_____________________________________________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S REPLY