Re: Best use of taxpayer money

On Oct 4, 1:54 pm, Orr <orrr2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This is what is happening when usenet has no supervision.

Kinda like the courts!

Or in America everyone will sue moderators then? :))

I just want a judge to "moderate" this tomorrow (sorry,
"LawyerKill" and everybody else):

WILLIAM ERNEST REID
v.
MICHAEL LUBOW
(fictitous name of MICHAEL TENENBAUM),
et. al.

APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO REVOKE OR SET ASIDE
GRANT OF MOTION TO QUASH BY DEFENDANT MICHAEL TENENBAUM
ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2009 (Code Civ. Pro. 1008(b),(d))

1. I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action.

2. On or about June 9, 2009, defendant Michael Tenenbaum
applied for an order that the court quash service of summons
and complaint on him due to lack of personal jurisdiction
from the Honorable James Emerson, assigned
Judge of the case, and the order was not granted at the
calendared hearing on July 21, 2009.

3. Thereafter, on or about August 20, 2009, without
submitting an affidavit or declaration disclosing the
previous application to Judge Emerson, and disclosing
such an order was not granted, and stating what new or
different facts, laws, or circumstances were claimed
to be shown, defendant Michael Tenenbaum presented a
new and substantively different application for the
same order to the Honorable Kevin Murphy, hearing Judge
Emerson’s motions in his absence on September 24, 2009,
who then issued the order as requested on
September 25, 2009.

4. The second application above was substantively
different from the first with different dispostive facts
claimed by declaration of the defendant, changes to the
memorandum of points and authorities, and a completely
different “Exhibit A” of evidence supporting his
motion: “Exhibit A” in the first application consisted of
185 pages, while “Exhibit B” in the second application
consisted of a completely different set of 34 pages.

5. The action was in violation of Section 1008(b) of the
Code of Civil Procedure and the same should be revoked or
set aside ex parte, and punished as a contempt with
sanctions allowed by Section 128.7 per Section 1008(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.

DATED: 10/4/2009

William Ernest Reid
Plaintiff for himself

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO REVOKE
OR SET ASIDE GRANT OF MOTION TO QUASH BY DEFENDANT
MICHAEL TENENBAUM ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2009

THE EX PARTE APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF WILLIAM ERNEST REID
FOR AN ORDER REVOKING OR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT
MADE ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2009 GRANTING THE RENEWED
MOTION OF DEFENDANT MICHAEL TENENBAUM FOR A QUASH OF SUMMONS
AND COMPLAINT SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE MICHAEL TENENBAUM
FAILED TO SHOW BY AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION WHAT
APPLICATION WAS PREVIOUSLY MADE FOR THE SAME ORDER, WHEN IT
WAS MADE AND TO WHAT JUDGE, WHAT ORDER AND DECISIONS
WERE MADE ON IT, AND WHAT NEW OR DIFFERENT FACTS,
CIRCUMSTANCES, OR LAW WERE CLAIMED TO BE SHOWN.

A. Requirements of a Renewed Motion. "A party who
originally made an application for an order which
was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally
or on terms, may make a subsequent application for
the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances,
or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what
application was made before, when and to what judge,
what order or decisions were made, and what new or different
facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown."
(Code Civ. Proc. Section 1008(b))

B. Order Obtained by Noncompliance With Foregoing
Requirements Is Subject to Revocation. "For a failure to
comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent
application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion."
(Code Civ. Proc. Section 1008(b)) "In addition, an order made
contrary to this section may be revoked by the judge or commissioner
who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in which the
action or proceeding is pending." (Code Civ. Proc. Section 1008(d))

C. Penalty for Violating Code of Civil Procedure Section
1008. "A violation of this section may be punished as a
contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7."
(Code Civ. Proc. Section 1008(d))

DATED: 10/4/2009

Respectfully submitted,

William Ernest Reid
Plaintiff for himself

ORDER RE: APPLICATION TO REVOKE OR SET ASIDE GRANT OF
MOTION TO QUASH BY DEFENDANT MICHAEL TENENBAUM ON
SEPTEMBER 25, 2009

Upon the ex parte application of plaintiff William Ernest
Reid of the above-titled case, wherein it appears that defendant
Michael Tenenbaum did obtain an order on September 25, 2009 that
service of summons and complaint on Michael Tenenbaum be quashed
for lack of personal jurisdiction from Judge Kevin Murphy, presiding
over the hearing on the motion, without disclosing by affidavit or
declaration in his motion therefore that a request for a
similar order had been made to Judge James Emerson and had
not been granted, and further failed to disclose the new or
different facts, laws, circumstances claimed to be shown therein,
and good cause appearing therefore,

It is hereby ordered that the order signed by Judge Kevin
J. Murphy on September 25, 2009 be and the same is hereby revoked
and annulled.


Dated:_______ ________________________________

Name of Judge: ________________________________
Judge of the Superior Court

---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: thousands, but probably to be soon overtaken
by the pages of pleadings in this open-and-shut case
.

Relevant Pages
Loading