Some details of case No. Appeal: B150249 and Superior Court: BC230208.
Los Angeles California
Some of the details of case No. Appeal: B150249 and Superior Court: BC230208, Los Angeles California follow.
1) I am 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 discrimination, retaliation, negligent and intentional spoliation of evidence, perjury, fraud (not fully litigated) and other causes.
a) After promising the Plaintiff/broker a commission to find a buyer for a property, and after the plaintiff found the buyer and produced an offer, the seller and buyer got together, and while encouraging the plaintiff to continue with her efforts, negotiated another offer with plaintiff's buyers;
b) Seller also severed plaintiff's name and commission clause from page eight (8) of Purchase Agreement signed by her Buyer;
c) Seller told Plaintiff that her buyer was sending others to contact him. After plaintiff told seller than he could be liable for two commissions if he signed anything in addition to the agreements already singed with plaintiff, seller terminated plaintiff's r.e. services adding "don't talk to you buyer again."
d) after the sale, seller did not pay to the plaintiff the commission he promised her for finding a buyer for his property.
3) Buyer Gunvant Patel/Defendant, Plaintiff Aguilar's Buyer, and Motels' owner, to be sued for discrimination and interference with prospective economic advantage (see Buckaloo v. Johnson.)
I. Buyer Gunvant Patel accorded to plaintiff different treatment granted to those under the same customary real estate transaction situation. Buyer Gunvant Patel is an experience investor who has bought numerous properties, have dealt with many real estate professionals for many year, and should have known better.
a) The buyer misrepresented to plaintiff as to his intentions and motives, e.g., showed plaintiff a motel located at xxxx Beverly Bldv. claiming to be his motel. Later plaintiff found the motel to be under someone else's name;
b) After submitting offer through Plaintiff, unknown to her at the time, buyer contacted Seller directly but continued to encourage plaintiff to continue with her efforts;
c) buyer refused to give to plaintiff 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 plaintiff, 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 plaintiff with all kinds of excuses for not being accessible;
f) buyer negotiated with seller basically the same agreement as he had with plaintiff at a reduced selling price which excluded part of plaintiff's commission;
g) Once Buyer opened escrow, he had dozens of Patels harassing plaintiff, by having them constantly telephoning her at all hours with bogus demands at all hours;
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, Lawyer for Defendant Seller
a) Treated plaintiff pro se not as a litigant, but with wanton, willful deception;
b) Claimed to the trial court that plaintiff's best precedent, Torelli v. J.P., could not be quoted by her because it was not published, sending plaintiff in a research spree that cost her many nights and entire days of investigation to find out that Torelli was indeed published in 1998. Plaintiff at the time did not have an idea as to where to look for answers;
c) Mr. Jones advised the seller not to produce plaintiff's requested documents that she needed as evidence;
d) in a continuos effort to undermine plaintiff's case, Mr. Jones, an attorney with 30 years plus of experience, denied to the court ever seeing a case where plaintiff's buyer and another buyer conspired together, trying to conceal from the court the existence of the "alter ego" doctrine, again causing plaintiff more innumerable 20 hour-days of research;
e) on March 19, 2001, during a deposition, Mr. Jones asked plaintiff, "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, of the Superior Court of Los Angeles is subject to Discriminatory and other charges, e.g.
a) he refused to answer plaintiff's questions, e.g., On April 23, 2001, hearing, Judge Pro Tem Stanley M. Weisberg told Lawyer Jones that a document that he was supposed to have filed by then, was missing. When plaintiff 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 plaintiff'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 plaintiff, caused her to ask Lawyer Jones outside the courtroom the name of the document the Judge Weisberg said was missing; Lawyer Jones gave plaintiff the wrong information causing her to file the wrong document;
b) Judge Weisberg referred to plaintiff by her first name at a hearing, a treatment not accorded to defendant's Lawyer, Mr. Stephen Lewis Jones;
c) Judge pro tem Weisberg court's clerk refused to give back to plaintiff her exhibits (see the attached list for clerk's demeanor in re plaintiff's treatment;)
d) At a hearing plaintiff told the Judge Weisberg re contradictions in two of Lawyer Jones' motions as to one of defendant Chang's 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 plaintiff whatsoever, as ruled in US V. SANCHEZ, 88 F3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1996), and had court clerks feed to plaintiff wrong answers to her questions.
b) From October 29, 2001, to November 20, 2001, Docket Entries did not show Lawyer Jones filing a Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's appeal and clerk told the plaintiff that "nothing" had been filed and that all plaintiff had to do was wait for Defendant's response. Plaintiff 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 files a Remittitur before plaintiff even petition for review (forcing plaintiff to attempt to file a "Notice and Motion to Recall Remittitur" which was rejected by the court's clerk on January 8, 2002).
d) After the remittitur is removed from the records, another remittitur was filed on January 25, 2002. This is one of the many actions by presiding judge Vogel showing prejudicial eagerness to dismiss pro se plaintiff's case before due process.
e) 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, Plaintiff is told she has until January 28, 2002 to file petition for review;
b) But, on January 9, 2002, Plaintiff is told that she missed the deadline, and to file motion for relief from default and petition for review before January 19, 2002. Plaintiff 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, and all 13 copies of petition for review are given back to plaintiff, not even sending a copy to San Francisco as petitions for all other cases are;
d) as of January 29, 2002 there was no record of a Docket Entry, nor otherwise, of plaintiff ever filing a motion for relief from default, only petition for review shows as being late.
The Merit of Plaintiff Aguilar's case was never considered.
=================================
Summary of facts
Around 1/15/2000 Chang promised to pay Plaintiff a 3% commission to find a buyer for a $2,100,000, 56 unit motel he occupied at the time. Around 2/20/2000 Plaintiff found buyer Patel; on 3/4/00 Plaintiff wrote & presented a full price offer to Chang. On 3/14/00 Chang wrote and faxed to Plaintiff a $2,200,000 counter offer, memorializing agreement to pay plaintiff a 6% commission. Thereafter Chang and the Patels got together and negotiated a purchased price that excluded Plaintiff's commission. If you have read Torelli v. J.P. and Buckaloo v. Johnson then you have read my case.
Plaintiff 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 Lawyer, Plaintiff needs to sue the buyers Patel for interference (Buckaloo v. Johnson).
