1 Jose Orellana
2 11663 Glenoaks Blvd.,
Pacoma, CA 91331
3 Defendant in Pro Per
4
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
5
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CHATSWORTH
6
7 MIGUEL LOPEZ, ) Case No.: PC056607
)
8 ) DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR
Plaintiff, )
9 ) HEARING FOR OSC RE: CONTEMPT
vs. ) AND SANCTIONS; PLAINTIFF,
10 ) PLAINTIFF'S GRACE WHITE; AND
JOSE ORELLANA, ) DECLARANT JOSE ORELLANA IN
11 ) SUPPORT
)
12 Defendant(s) )
)
13 ) Date: August 9, 2019
) Time: 8:30 am
14 ) Dept.: F49
15
16
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
17
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 9, 2019, Defendant Jose Orellana will move
18
this Court for an order, inter alia, issuing an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt ("OSC re
19
Contempt") pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") 1209(a)(4)(5).
20
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the OSC re Contempt shall be evaluated
21
based upon this Notice and the Points and Authorities, the Supplemental Declaration of Jose
22
Orellana and the police reported filed concurrently herewith, the courts order on file with this
23
court and all other papers and pleadings in this case, and upon such other pleadings and oral and
24
documentary evidence on file or as may be presented at the hearing on the OSC re Contempt.
25
26 Dated: August 8, 2019 __________________________
27
Jose Orellana
28
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR OSC HEARING RE: CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS - 1
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 On May 16, 2018 attorney Lane M. Nussbaum SBN 264200, RATHA KEA and
3 Declarant Joe Valdez and LIBERTY FUND, LLC, brought fraud upon the court by filing an
4 action for Unlawful Detainer against Defendant based on code of civil procedure §1161a. (See,
5 Plaintiff's Complaint - Exhibit 1)
6 Plaintiff LIBERTY FUND, LLC et al., and their attorneys willfully, intentionally and
7 callously made false statements throughout the unlawful detainer pleading fully knowing that
8 these statement where false, unfounded with no evidence to support them.
9 Plaintiff and their attorneys represented to this court that the matter was a non-judicial
10 foreclosure complete under California Civil Code§ 2924.
11 Plaintiff and their attorneys state in their complaint paragraph 4; "On May 1, 2018 a
12 foreclosure sale took place and Plaintiff took title to the Premises and received an executed
13 Trustee's Deed Upon Sale".
14 This statement is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts stated therein and each of them
15 (Plaintiff, Plaintiff's attorneys) have failed to provided any evidence of the Trustee's Deed Upon
16 Sale with the Complaint that is stated in paragraph 4.
17 Defendant pulled his chain of title and found a fraudulent and forged Trustee's Deed
18 Upon Sale slandering his title. (see Trustee's Deed Exhibit 1)
19 Defendant pursuant to Evidence Code §450, §451, §452, and §453 requests the Court to
20 take judicial notice of the following matters: The Trustee's Deed.
21 It has a forged signature of the notary Katherine A. Davis. (see Katherine Davis's notary
22 application signature Exhibit 2)
23 Defendant moves the court to take judicial notice of Katherine Davis's notary application
24 signature.
25 Plaintiff the LIBERTY FUND, LLC, and their attorneys Lane M. Nussbaum SBN
26 264200, RATHA KEA and declarant Joe Valdez should be held in contempt of this Court
27 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") 1209(a)(3)(4) and (Bus. & Prof. Code
28 6068(c)) (Bus. & Prof. Code 6068(g) for moral-turpitude amongst other things.
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR OSC HEARING RE: CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS - 2
1 Plaintiff's attorney has a higher standard of obligation to investigate all material facts of
2
his client before he or she takes the case. It should never be for the passion of money.
3
Plaintiffs' attorney failed to thoroughly investigate the “authenticity” and “legal standing” of
4
documents before filing a false complaint with false statements of a “duly perfected title
5
pursuant to § 2924” before filing an action.
6
An attorney must counsel or maintain only those actions, proceedings, or defenses that
7
8
appear to the attorney as legal or just. (Bus. & Prof. Code 6068(c)). An attorney is under a duty
9 not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from
10 corrupt motives of passion or interest. (Bus. & Prof. Code 6068(g); See Sorensen v. State Bar
11 (1991 52 C.3d 1036, 1045; Rule of Professional Conduct 5-130). An attorney who presents a
12
pleading, motion or similar paper to the court makes an implied “certification” as to its legal
13
and factual merit; and is subject to sanctions for violation of this certification”.(Code of Civ.
14
Pro. 128.7; Murphy v. Yale Materials Handling Corp. (1997) cal. App App. 4th 619, 623).
15
16
NUMBEROUS ACTS TAKEN BY PLAINTIFF CONSTITUE CONTEMPT
17 PURSUANT TO CCP 1209(a) (3) (4)
18 Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorneys has taken this action in complete disregard of public
19 safety, and disregard for judicial economy of tax-payers… this Court's Limited Jurisdictional
20 proceedings is being used improperly, if not abusively.
21
1. Plaintiffs and their Attorneys intentionally, and maliciously knowingly knew or should
22
have known that this forged Trustee's Deed that this document was being illegally
23
recorded in violation of California penal code 115, 118, 132, 134, 470 and 535.
24
2. Whereby misleading this court to presume that it was a Real Party In Interest that had the
25
standing and or capacity to bring this action.
26
3. Plaintiff's claim to any right, title and interest to Defendant's property has been obtained
27 by fraudulent and forged Trustee's Deed Recorded, In Official Records Riverside.
28
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR OSC HEARING RE: CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS - 3
4. Plaintiffs and their Attorneys intentionally filed a complaint knowing that Plaintiff lacked
1
standing to bring an action to the limited jurisdiction court. Each of their acts are grossly-
2
negligent and further injures Defendant, a victim of an aggravated identity theft.
3
5. Plaintiffs are in contempt of court by offering or submitting fraudulent documents and
4
making false misrepresentations to the court, pursuant to Civ. Code § 1209(a) (3) (4).
5
6
1209(a)(3)(4) Provides:
7 The following acts or omissions in respect to a court of
Justice or proceedings therein, are contempt, of the authority of
8 the court:
9
(3) Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation
of duty by an attorney, counsel, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other
10 person, appointed or elected to perform a judicial or ministerial
service.
11
(4) Abuse of the process or proceedings of the court, or falsely
12 pretending to act under authority of an order or process of the
Court.
13
California courts have held that one is liable in tort for his actions if he/she files false
14
claims against the property of another or to use false claims to maintain an action.
15
This abuse of the Court process, in trying to obtain a judgment against Defendant's
16
property without lawful standing to maintain this action is a clear abuse of the process of this
17
court.
18
An attorney who presents a pleading, motion or similar paper to the court makes an
19
implied “certification” as to its legal and factual merit; and is subject to sanctions for violation
20
of this certification”.(Code of Civ. Pro. 128.7; Murphy v. Yale Materials Handling Corp. (1997)
21
cal. App App. 4th 619, 623).
22
DEFENDANT HAS SUFFERED DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF'S
23
AND PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS CONTEMPT.
24
CCP §1218(a) provides, in pertinent part that “if it be adjudged that [PLAINTIFF AND
25
PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS] is guilty of the contempt, a fine may be imposed on THEM not
26
exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), payable to the court, or [THEY] may be imprisoned
27
not exceeding five days, or both. Furthermore, because Plaintiff and Plaintiffs attorneys is
28
subject to an order of this Court and a party to this action, they “may be ordered to pay to the
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR OSC HEARING RE: CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS - 4
1 party initiating the contempt proceeding the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by this
2 party connection with the contempt proceeding.”
3 As set forth above, Plaintiff s are guilty of contempt. Further, Defendant is the party
4 initiating this contempt proceeding.
5 This has an inherent obligation to turn this matter of to the District Attorney's Office for
6 further investigation.
7 CONCLUSION
8 In light of Plaintiff’s abhorrent behavior and gross misuse of the judicial process,
9 Defendant respectfully requests that this Court: (1) impose a fine of $1,000 upon Plaintiff and
10 Plaintiff's attorneys, payable to this Court; (2) imprison Plaintiff for five days; and or (3) order
11 Plaintiff to pay Defendant's reasonable cost of responding to this action and costs in the
12 amount of $3,000.
13
Dated: April 4, 2018
14
15 _______________________________
Jose Orellana, Defendant
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR OSC HEARING RE: CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS - 5
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 EXHIBIT 1
27
PLAINTIFF'S TRUSTEE'S DEED UPON SALE
28
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR OSC HEARING RE: CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS - 6
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 EXHIBIT 2
27
KATHERINE A. DAVIS NOTARY APPLICATION SIGNATURE
28
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR OSC HEARING RE: CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS - 7
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
1
2 I declare that I am a citizen of the United States and reside in City of _______________,
3 State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within case or
proceeding.
4
My residence address is _____________________________________________________.
5
On June 1, 2018, I served a true and correct copy of the within document entitled:
6
7
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR OSC HEARING RE: CONTEMPT AND
8
SANCTIONS; PLAINTIFF, LANE M. NUSSBAUM SBN 264200, RATHA KEA AND
9 DECLARANT JOE VALDEZ
10
11 on the parties to this action by causing the above said document(s) to be mailed first class mail
12 as follows:
13
LANE M. NUSSBAUM
14 27489 Agoura Road Ste. 102
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
15
16
I certify and declare the above to be true under penalty of perjury and that this proof of service
17
is dated June 1, 2018, at Orange, California.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR OSC HEARING RE: CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS - 8
