Some details of case No. Appeal: B150249 and Superior Court: BC230208.
Los Angeles California
[Any feed back will be appreciated. If you cannot take my case on contingency, I still agree to a 50% split for you to answer procedural questions only, the issue in which I'm always being misled by the court's clerks and the opposing attorney, e.g. what to file, and when to file. I did not have problems with writing the motions, research, precendents, filings, etc.]
1) Teresa Aguilar/Plaintiff pro se, a Cal. Real Estate Broker
2) Mike Chang/Defendant, (a.k.a. Shih Tsung Chang), Seller and a Cal. Real Estate Broker; was sued for Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith (see Torelli v. J.P.) and to be sued for negligent and intentional spoliation of evidence, perjury, fraud, (not fully litigated due to judge pro tem action,) and other causes.
a) After promising the Broker a commission to find a buyer for a property, and after the broker found the buyer and produced an offer, the seller and buyer got together, and while encouraging the broker to continue with her efforts, negotiated another offer;
b) Seller also severed broker's name and commission clause from page eight (8) of Purchase Agreement signed by her Buyer;
c) after the sale, seller did not pay to the broker the commission he promised her for finding a buyer for his property.
3) Buyer Gunvant Patel/Defendant, Broker Aguilar's Buyer, and Motels' owner, to be sued for interference with prospective economic advantage (see Buckaloo v. Johnson.)
a) The buyer deceived broker as to his intentions and motives, e.g., showed broker a motel located at xxxx Beverly Bldv. claiming to be his motel. Later broker found the motel to be under someone else's name;
b) After submitting offer through Broker, unknown to her at the time, buyer contacted Seller directly but continued to encourage broker to continue with her efforts;
c) buyer refused to give to broker a bona fide deposit to present to Seller, and instead contacted seller directly and through third persons and presented other offers;
d) buyer, while encouraging broker, refused to talk to her several times during negotiations claiming to be out of town, but sending others to contact seller;
e) Buyer sent his son to contact broker with all kinds of excuses for not being accessible;
f) buyer negotiated with seller basically the same agreement as he had with broker at a reduced selling price which excluded part of broker's commission;
g) Once Buyer opened escrow, he had dozens of Patels harassing broker, by having them constantly telephoning her at all hours with bogus demands;
4) Others involved: Sunil Patel, Ken Patel, Escrow Company
Interference with prospective economic advantage (Buckaloo v. Johnson.)
5) Does 1 through 10
Other parties subject to discrimination charges:
6) Stephen Lewis Jones, Counsel for Defendant Seller
a) Treated broker pro se not as an opposing litigant, but with wanton, willful deception;
b) Claimed to the trial court that broker's precedent Torelli v. J.P. could not be quoted by her because it was not published, sending broker in a research spree that cost her many nights and entire days of investigation to find out that Torelli was indeed published in 1998. Broker at the time did not have an idea as to where to look for answers.
c) Mr. Jones advised the seller not to produce broker's requested documents that she needed as evidence;
d) in a continuos effort to undermine broker's case, Mr. Jones, an attorney with 30 years plus experienced, denied to the court ever seeing a case where broker's buyer and another buyer conspired together, trying to conceal from the court the existence of the "alter ego" doctrine, again causing broker more innumerable 20 hour-days of research;
e) on March 19, 2001, during a deposition, Mr. Jones asked broker, "Did you ever tell Mr. Chang (seller), 'Look, why don't you just sell it for 2.1 [$2,100,000 price] and not give me all that extra money and I'll take my 3 percent?' " (See, March 19, 2001, deposition, Page 52, Line 22.) This statement shows Mr. Jones and seller's knowledge, reason and admission as to the real motive for the breach of contract and the interference that took place, committing perjury to boot;
7) Judge Pro Tem Stanley M. Weisberg, (SMW) Superior Court of Los Angeles
Discriminatory and other Causes
a) refused to answer broker's questions, e.g., On April 23, 2001, hearing, Judge Pro Tem Stanley M. Weisberg told Counsel Jones that a document that he was supposed to have filed by then, was missing. When broker asked Judge Weisberg to please repeat which document was missing, since she did not want to make the same mistake, Judge Weisberg answered: "I don't repeat myself." Yet, on May 1, 2001 at 9:30 A.M. hearing of earlier cases just prior to broker's jury trial hearing, an opposing attorney asked, "What did he say to be done by Monday ...," and the judge pro tem politely responded and repeated the information. The judge lack of response to broker, caused her to ask Counsel Jones outside the courtroom the name of the document the Judge Weisberg said was missing, Counsel Jones gave broker the wrong information causing her to file the wrong document;
b) Judge Weisberg referred to broker by her first name at a hearing, a treatment not accorded to defendant's counsel, Mr. Stephen Lewis Jones;
c) Judge pro tem Weisberg court's clerk refused to give back to broker her exhibits (see the attached list for clerk's demeanor in re broker's treatment;)
d) At a hearing plaintiff told the Judge Weisberg re contradictions in two of Mr. Stephen Lewis Jones motions as to one of defendant chang claims; Judge Weisberg answered, "why are you looking at an old motion from Semptember;" e) etc.
8) Appellate Presiding Judge Vogel, Los Angeles, Cal Court of Appeals:
Discriminatory and other Causes
a) Provided no instructions to pro se broker whatsoever, as ruled in US V. SANCHEZ, 88 F3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1996), and had court clerks feed to broker wrong answers to her questions.
b) From October 29, 2001, to November 20, 2001, Docket Entries did not show Counsel Jones' filing a Motion to Dismiss broker's appeal and clerk told the broker that "nothing" had been filed and that all broker had to do was wait for Defendant's response. Broker did not receive Mr. Jones' filed Motion to dismiss until November 20, 2001, the same day the presiding judge Vogel promptly filed the order to dismiss, giving no reason for dismissal.
c) On November 20, 2001, presiding judge Vogel filed a Remittitur before broker even petitions for review (forcing broker to attempt to file a "Notice and Motion to Recall Remittitur" which was rejected by the court's clerk on January 8, 2002). After the remittitur is removed from the records, another remittitur is filed on January 25, 2002. This is one of the many actions by presiding judge Vogel showing prejudicial eagerness to dismiss pro se broker's case before due process.
d) On December 20, 2001, presiding judge Vogel files a second order to dismiss, this time claiming technicalities for the appeal's dismissal
9) Cal Supreme Court actions.
a) On December 27, 2001, Broker is told she has until January 28, 2002 to file petition for review;
b) But, on January 9, 2002, Broker is told that she missed the deadline, and to file motion for relief from default and petition for review before January 19, 2002. Broker timely filed motion and petition on January 17, 2002;
c) On January 25, 2002, the motion for relief from default and petition for review are denied;
d) as of January 29, 2002 there was no record of a Docket Entry, nor otherwise, of broker ever filing a motion for relief from default, only petition for review shows as being late.
e) broker filed Notice and motion to recall remittitur and to reinstate appeal. .
The Merit of Broker Aguilar's case was never considered.
=================================
Summary of facts
Around 1/15/2000 Chang promised to pay Aguilar a commission to find a buyer for a 56 unit motel he occupied at the time. Around 2/20/2000 aguilar found buyer Patel; on 3/4/00 Aguilar wrote & presented a full price offer to Chang. On 3/14/00 Chang wrote and faxed to Aguilar a counter offer, memorializing agreement to pay broker a commission. Thereafter Chang and the Patels got together and negotiated a purchased price that excluded Aguilar's commission. If you have read Torelli v. J.P. and Buckaloo v. Johnson then you have read my case.
Aguilar sued Chang only for breach of contract and needs to sue him for negligent and intentional spoliation of evidence, perjury, and other causes.
According to Chang's counsel Aguilar needs to sue the buyers Patel for interference (Buckaloo v. Johnson).
Chang/Defendant and Aguilar/plaintiff, are both real estate brokers. The buyers Patel, are motel owners.
