1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Brad Greenspan, Pro Se 264 South La Cienega Suite 1216 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT, MOSK COURTHOUSE - UNLIMITED ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Greenspan v. Bank of America et al, Defendants

CASE NO: BC 501557 [ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE MAUREEN DUFFY-LEWIS DEPT 38 CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID PURSUANT TO 473,663, 1008, AND/OR INTRINSIC OR EXTRINSIC FRAUD

Hearing Date: TBD Time: TBD

1
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
III I II

INDEX

INTRODUCTION ARGUMENT . A. FRAUD UPON COURT, ILLEGAL EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, IMPROPER NOTICE B. FRAUDULENT APRIL 18, 2013 MOTION OMITTED FACTS & PURPOSE OF APRIL 4, 2013 IDENTICAL MOTION C. IMPROPER NOTICE CCP 1005(b) D. HARASSMENT AND THREATS. E. MISLEADING PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY, FILING FALSE EVIDENCE.. F. FALSE EVIDENCE IN MAY 2ND MOTION.

Page 3 Page 4 Page 4 Page 6

Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10

G. DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS FURTHER INVALIDATES JONES DECLARATION Page 12 H. DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO WITHDRAW OR UPDATE APRIL 23RD MOTION Page 13 FOR SANCTIONS WAS UNLAWFUL AND ACT OF BAD FAITH I. UNLAWFUL THREATS INTERFERED WITH ATTORNEY CLIENT.. Page 14 RELATIONSHIP

J. FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED THEFT, EXTORTION, AND CONVERSION. Page 16 CONCLUSION. Page 17

2
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: Plaintiff herein, Brad D. Greenspan, Pro Se ("Petitioner"), submits this memorandum in support of his Motion to Void Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473, 663, 1008 and/or intrinsic or extrinsic fraud the: i) April 18, 2013 ex parte hearing ii) April 18, 2013 Motion to amend hearing for Motion to Expunge iii) May 2, 2013 Supplemental Motion iv) May 7, 2013 hearing and/or subsequent ruling. For the reasons explained below, the dismissal should be vacated because it is void and was erroneously entered. I INTRODUCTION: Defendants knowing they could not survive demurrer on the merits and knowing that allowing Discovery and interview of Defendants BJG Associates and/or Justin Greenberg would expose the Criminal scheme that had created an over $1,000,000 profit for such defendants in less then six months. Defendants hired an attorney, Webb, and instructed Webb to use any means possible to disrupt Plaintiff getting an equitable process for Plaintiffs legal claims. Plaintiff was victim of having his sole residence worth $3.25 million dollars, wrongfully put into a foreclosure public sale on December 13, 2012 without proper notice. Plaintiff was unable to gain access to the property during that period and was in the middle of an unlawful detainer action in Santa Monica branch of California State Court. Unable to gain access, Plaintiff was not able to receive the notices the Bank sent to his house. Instead, the unlawful detainee, tipped off Greenberg and BJG Associates LLC, a scheme was formed which resulted in a rigged public sale with the benefactors being the unlawful detainees associates purporting to purchase the property at an artificially low price of $1,770,000. While Plaintiff was nave enough to continue to believe lawful behavior thru engagement in the legal court system was the appropriate venue to take up his grievances and get relief from the unlawful acts, the unlawful detainee struck a secret deal with Greenberg and BJG Associates where Defendants unlawfully ignored the ongoing unlawful detainer action and took possession of 100% of Plaintiffs personal property and business property. Greenberg then began extorting and threatening Plaintiff including breaking of his computers, and refused to turn over the property worth millions of dollars thru the May 7, 2013 hearing date. Greenberg and BJG Associates LLC then quickly found a buyer for the property they bought below fair market for over $2,600,000 by March of 2013. Their one problem from scoring a million dollar approximate profit in a four month period was the specter of proving the legality of their criminal actions. Deciding that the time needed to go thru the legal system and prove their actions were not criminal was extensive and burdensome. Worse, figuring out how to prove the trespass, conversion, and extortion actions

3
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 were not more then enough to make them non bona fide buyers was going to be challenging to say the least. 2
Greenberg and BJG Associates LLC, therefore decided the best way forward was to embark

3 on another scheme by hiring a reckless unlawful attorney who would mislead the court and Plaintiff and do 4 whatever was necessary to stop the updated facts entering the case thru Plaintiffs Amended complaint. 5 7
Defendants attorney Webb then carried out a scheme to create a void May 7, 2013 hearing to misled

6 the Court by concealing the April 4, 2013 amended motion and lawfully noticed hearing of July 1,2013.
(See Declaration, Section 51A,B,C,D,E,F,pg.13-15 & Section 70-72,pg20)

8 Plaintiff unable to adjust a legal budget and plan to combat Webbs unlawful conduct was expectedly harmed 9 when a July 1, 2013 hearing for the Motion to Expunge suddenly changed to May 7, 2013, including failing to 10 enter a written response to the Defendants demurrer. The Court also misled by Webb, sustained the 11 Defendants demurrer after the May 7, 2013 hearing. 12 This motion seeks the Court to void the: i) April 18, 2013 ex parte hearing ii) April 18, 2013 Motion to amend 13 hearing for Motion to Expunge iii) May 2, 2013 Supplemental Motion iv) May 7, 2013 hearing and/or 14 subsequent ruling for any one of the following reasons: 15 16 17
i) FRAUD ii) ILLEGAL EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND/OR BREACH OF ABA & CALIFORNIA BAR GUIDELINES iii) ISSUING THREATS TO AND MAKING KNOWINGLY FALSE STATEMENTS TO PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY iv) FAILING TO UPDATE THE COURT THEREBY MISLEADING COURT v) FILING APRIL 23, 2013 MOTION, THEN NOT REMOVING OR AMENDING vi) IMPROPER NOTICE FOR MAY 2 MOTION AND MAY 7 HEARING

18 Plaintiff did not receive notice of the Alleged Motion and hearing, and had Plaintiff been so notified, Plaintiff 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ii. would have filed an opposition, appeared at said hearing, and vigorously opposed the Alleged Motion. Plaintiffs right to due process compels this Court to set aside, Void and.or to revoke the ruling. II A. ARGUMENT FRAUD UPON COURT, ILLEGAL EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, IMPROPER NOTICE 1. On April 4, 2013, Defendant attorney Webb notices and files, Amended Notice of Hearing i. Defendant states in such April 4, 2013 notice: As a result of Defendants Home Retention disqualification of Judge matter was reassigned to Judge Duffy Department 38 of the above Court As a result, date and time for the Hearings on BJG Motions Motion to Expunge Demmurer has been changed as follows Hearing Set for: July 1, 2013, 930am, Dept 38 (See Declaration, Section 51A,pg.13)

4
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28

2. Defendants sent letter notice to Plaintiff on Tuesday April 16, 2013, stating: NOTICE OF MOTION OF EX PARTE for APRIL 19, 2013 at 830am to advance its currently reserved hearing date for my Motion to Expunge Notice of Pending Action from July 1, 2013 to May 7, 2013. i. I will be appearing this Friday, April 19, 2013 in Department 38; at 8:30 a.m.

ii. to advance its currently reserved hearing date for my Motion to Expunge iii. from July 1, 2013 to May 7, 2013 (See Declaration, Section 51B,pg.13) 3. On Wednesday April 17, 2013, At 11:32AM, Defendant sends Fax letter stating I will be appearing Exparte this Friday mornings, I am hopeful that you will appear, having received formal notice. (See Declaration, Section 51C,pg.14) 4. On April 17th, Webb publicly posted, Your phone is disabled you need to pay attention and respond to letters re the Brad greenspan case. Ill be in court Friday morning and hope to see you there. (See Declaration,Section 52,pg.16) 5. On Thursday April 18, 2013 at approximately 8:30AM, Webb begins without notice, a secret Ex parte hearing, communication, or meeting between uncontested unsure Webb and admitted unsure clerk in Dept 38. The topic is the same matter that is the subject of Webbs April 16th NOTICE OF MOTION OF EX PARTE (See Declaration, Section 51D,pg.14) 6. On Thursday April 18, 2013 at 10:56AM, Defendant Webb sends fax letter stating: i. clerk in Dept 38 Court has maintained original May 7, 2013 date for my Motion to Expunge. ii. As Such, I will not be appearing to seek any Ex Parte Relief tomorrow morning, as originally noticed. iii. Enclosed Amended Notice of the Hearing on the motion to Expunge reflecting that the matter is now in Department 38 (instead of Department 62) and the time of the hearing in Department 38 is 9:30 AM iv. Clerk unsure as to whether our demurrer will likewise be heard on May 7, 2013, but I am going to assume that it is. (See Declaration, Section 51E,pg.14) 7. It was a fraudulent scheme by Defendants attorney Webb to first and only notify Plaintiff on April 16, 2013, of an Ex Parte hearing set for April 19, 2013. Then for Webb to without notice, secretly conduct the hearing with the Court on April 18th, for the very same purpose notified Plaintiff on April 16th

27 would be the subject of the April 19th hearing.

8. Webb misled the Court, omitting the fact during the April 18, 2013 unlawful ex parte hearing and/or communication that Webb had set and notified Plaintiff for a hearing on the same subject for April 19,

5
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

2013. Webb clearly omitted disclosure to the Court on April 18, 2013 that the only reason the Plaintiff was not present was that Webb had concealed his intent to conduct a hearing on April 18, 2013 while simultaneously misleading Plaintiff in believing that April 19, 2013 was the date for the ex parte hearing on the same subject. 9. Defendant Webb also acted unlawfully and violated ABA and California State Bar rules with his

illegal ex parte communications, deceitful actions, and fraud upon the court. The U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the essence Plaintiffs right to due process includes a right to be notified of any hearing on a matter adverse to his interest. The essence of due process is the requirement that a person in jeopardy of serious loss (be given) notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it. .... All that is necessary is that the procedures be tailored, in light of the decision to be made, to the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard, .... to insure that they are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319@348-349 [96 S.Ct. 893; 47 L.Ed.2d 18], emphasis added. This essential due-process right is codified by California statute: Notices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion, other than for a new trial, must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based. CCP 1010. 10. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Plaintiff had the right to be notified of April 18, 2013 ex

16 parte hearing. Failure to Notify Plaintiff of April 18 Ex Parte Hearing on or before April 17, 2013, renders 17 18 19 21 23 24 25 26

April 18 hearing unlawful, illegal, and void. Voiding April 18 illegal ex parte hearing, voids authority of the April 18, 2013 motion to amend and change the July 1, 2013 properly set hearing, and therefore voids the May

20 7, 2013 hearing and subsequent ruling.

11. Plaintiffs due-process right to be notified of a hearing on motion adverse to his interests renders

22 any ruling, made in the absence of such notice, void on its face and subject to collateral attack at any time.
failure to serve appellant with notice of the motion is the equivalent of failure to serve summons and complaint, which renders a judgment void on its face and subject to collateral attack at any time. In re Marriage of Kreiss (6 Dist.,1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1033@1039 [274 Cal.Rptr. 226], emphasis added. 12. As supported by Plaintiffs Declaration, the April 18, 2013 Ex Parte Hearing was

27 Therefore, the Court should set the Ruling aside as void pursuant to CCP 473(d). 28
B.

made and attended by Defendant without notice to Plaintiff of the hearing, and is therefore void. FRAUDULENT APRIL 18, 2013 MOTION OMITTED FACTS & PURPOSE OF APRIL 4, 2013 IDENTICAL MOTION

6
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Court should exercise its equitable powers to set aside or void the May 7, 2013 ruling from the unlawfully fabricated purported properly noticed hearing that fraudulently concealed the properly notice July 1, 2013 hearing because this was only made possible due to Defendant attorneys extrinsic fraud Extrinsic fraud occurs when a party is deprived of the opportunity to present his claim or defense to the court; where he was kept ignorant or, other than from his own negligence, fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceeding. [Citation.] Examples of extrinsic fraud are: . . . failure to give notice of the action to the other party, and convincing the other party not to obtain counsel because the matter will not proceed (and then it does proceed). [Citation.] The essence of extrinsic fraud is one partys preventing the other from having his day in court. [Citations.] Extrinsic fraud only arises when one party has in some way fraudulently been prevented from presenting his or her claim or defense. [Citations.] (Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1300.) 2. Defendants May 7, 2013 hearing and the ruling produced are both void because Defendant had

10 previously on April 4, 2013 already filed an identical Motion to Amend the Motion to Expunge hearing date to 11 July 1, 2013. Therefore, Defendants April 18, 2013 motion was an unlawful and fraudulent attempt to get a 12
second amendment approved by the Court. Rather then disclose the true facts to the Court in such April 18, 2013 motion, instead Defendants omitted mention of the April 4, 2013 motion. If Defendants had acted lawfully and disclosed the facts and purpose of the April 4, 2013 motion, then the Court would have voided the

13 14 15

16 April 18, 2013 motion itself as being an invalid attempt to re-amend the April 4, 2013 motion which was a 17 motion to amend the Motion to Expunge hearing date. (See Declaration, Section 51, 51A,B,C,D,E,F) 18
3. The Court Should Set the Ruling Aside as Void Pursuant to CCP 473(a),(b),(c), or (d). Under

19 such law, the Court May Set Aside a Void Order at Any Time. The Court may, at any time, set aside a ruling 20 21 22
that it determines to be void. Under (d) The court may, .... on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order. CCP 473(d), emphasis added. Code of Civil Procedure section

23 473, subdivision (d) states that, "The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct 24 clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and 25 26 27 28
may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order." 4. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), a motion to vacate a

default and default judgment must be brought within six months of entry of the default judgment. Section 473, subdivision (d) allows a trial court to set aside a void judgment without mentioning a time limit. Lee v. An (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 558, 563.Void judgments (CCP 473(d)): C. IMPROPER NOTICE CCP 1005(b)

7
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1.

Even if the Court finds the above reasons cited to grant the motion to void its ruling

insufficient, the Court should grant the motion to void because of the Defendants lack of sufficient Notice. This essential due-process right is codified by California statute: (b) Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. The moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filed or to be filed with the court. However, if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California,.... and if the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by two calendar days. CCP 1005(b), emphasis added. CCP 1005 is referenced by the California Rules of Court: (a) [In general] Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. CRC, rule 317(a). 2. First the April 18, 2013 Motion (Declaration, Section 51E,F, pg14) fails proper notice

Under CCP 1005(b) as it used mail service, providing 16-day period plus five calendar days 3. Second, the May 2, 2013 Motion (Decl., Section 71) also fails proper notice under CCP 1005(b). D. 1. HARASSMENT AND THREATS

Defendant Attorney Webs unlawful scheme to gain advantage thru improperly accelerating the time

of the properly set hearing for the Motion to Expunge further makes uses of harassment to gain advantage. 2. Webb makes the following statements in his May 2, 2013, Declaration i. my client located Ms. Jones Facebook page and I sent communication to her a couple of weeks ago. That email communication through her Facebook account ultimately was seen by Ms. Jones and she subsequently provided me with her direct email address. (Declaration,Section 74,pg.20) ii. Attached hereto marked Exhibit A is the Facebook emails dated April 26, 2013 and subsequent emails sent the following day, April 27, 2013 (Declaration,Section 74,pg.20) 3. Webb lies in his May 2, 2013 declaration in an attempt to coverup the fact that Webb Violated ABA and California Bar rules thru unlawful and improper harassment by publicly posting Messages on Jones Facebook page. Webb omits the fact that initially Jones opted not to respond to Webbs intrusion into her privacy because he was not someone she had invited to communicate with her on Facebook.com. Webb then determined to force contact with Jones, then made public messaging comments or postings on Jones Facebook page which were harassing and made for the sole intent to bully, intimidate, and bait Jones to enter discussions while Jones was in a state of surprise and confused.

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

i.

On April 17th, Webb publicly posted, Your phone is disabled you need to pay attention and respond to letters re the Brad greenspan case. Ill be in court Friday morning and hope to see you there. (See Declaration,Section 52,pg.16)

ii.

on April 26,2013, at 4:19PM You are attorney of record on a complaint you filed and recorded a Notice All of the Defendants have file demurrers and various motions against your client, we have all mailed letters to the address indicated or your complaint and faxed them as well. It is you that has the legal responsibility to be in contact with your office and to respond. We have apprised the court of your unavailability and there is at least one motion for sanctions against you personally. (See Declaration,Section 52,pg.16)

4.

Webbs goading of Jones thru spamming her Facebook.com page certainly produced

the results of catching Jones off guard as Jones replies on April 27, 2013: i. It is just occurred to me that you represent a defendant, not Mr. Greenspan (Decl,Section 53,pg.17)

5. Webbs public posts on Jones facebook.com page about the case were harassing, improper, and unethical. Jones has to intervene and agree to provide her private email address to stop Webb from continuing his spam attack as Jones responses prove: i.I do wish you had contacted me through regular direct messaging and I do not wish to continue this on Facebook ii.you should have paid the buck to message me, so I would have seen it, instead of the spam (Declaration,Section 53,pg.17) E. 1. MISLEADING PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY, FILING FALSE EVIDENCE Webb on or around April 27, 2013, becomes aware that Jones is traveling and

likely has not read the April 23, 2013 motion filed by Webb to compel Jones client to be deposed and that Webb requested Jones and her client be sanctioned. 2. Defendant Webbs first lie is communicated April 27, 2013 at 9:22AM via message that the public and/or Jones Facebook.com friends can view, There are motions pending including requests for sanctions against you. (Decl., Section 55,pg.17) Webbs statement is misleading because Webb knows he is the only party that has made a request for sanctions against Jones and such request was made thru the April 23, 2013 motion filed by Webb. Therefore, using the word requests creates misperception that multiple motions or multiple

9
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

parties have requested sanctions. Webb lies to goad, scare, and confuse Jones into disclosing information that breaches her attorney client privilege. 3. Defendant Webb lies in an email sent at April 27, 2013, at 11:38AM stating The recorded Notice was notarized. (Declaration,Section 57,pg. 18) 4. On April 27, 2013, Plaintiffs attorney responds at 11:18AM I have not been in California since January 2, 2013, there is no way I could have signed a Notice before a notary in California, and I dont even know of any notaries where I am now. I am not certain when I am returning to California, but all of this information certainly has derailed my quest for inner peace and so forth! (Declaration,Section 58,pg. 18) 5. Defendant Webb after lying to Plaintiffs lawyer attempts further to Strike a deal that obstructs

justice, stating at 12:16 PM on April 27, 2013, in an email to Plaintiffs Attorney Jones, If I get you the form would you also consider dismissing the law suit w/out prejudice then if your client gets a new atty or wants to appear in pro per he can. (EXHIBIT U) F. 1. FALSE EVIDENCE IN MAY 2ND MOTION The May 2, 2013 motion filing by Defendants contains false evidence and is further cause to

vacate the ruling made as a result of the May 7, 2013 hearing which relied on such false evidence. Defendants attorney Webb prepared the declaration with the numerous false statements of fact, admitting, The attached declaration was initially prepared by me (Declaration,section 72, pg. 20) FALSE STATEMENT #1 2. Jones first false statement in her Declaration signed April 30, 2013 and

filed by Webb in the May 2, 2013 Supplementary motion. i. In or about February of 2013, solely as an accommodation, I prepared and signed the Complaint in this action and authorized its filing with the expressed understanding with my client, Brad Greenspan, that he would locate another attorney to continue with this litigation. (Declaration, section 72, pg. 20) 3.This is rebutted by the following evidence which shows Jones after the Complaint was filed, Jones desired to continue to be the attorney of record, sought and requested new payment terms, and only after told that Plaintiff would not pay Jones desired terms, did Jones and

10
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff agree Plaintiff would search for new attorney. i. First, February 13, 2013, days before Jones faxed the to be filed Complaint:

I have spent a total of seven hours on this, and have about 14 pages to fax. (Declaration, Section 5, pg.2) 4. On February 27, 2013, Jones email clearly shows she is attempting to

Secure ongoing commitment of payment and employment as the attorney of record for this Quiet Title complaint, well after the Complaint was filed days before, stating, i. I was merely informing you of options. ii. I agreed to hastily file a complaint for mortgage fraud so you could file a lis pendens

iii. To quiet title, I will need a retainer fee and an hourly agreement on that. But if my terms are not agreeable for you, I will move the court to be relieved as counsel of record iv. You know my terms: they are not subject to any further negotiation, except the amount of the stock options. Period. So do not call me, or email me, to argue. I will just sub out, (Declaration, Section 77, pg. 22) FALSE STATEMENT #2 5. The second false statement underpinning the May 2nd motion is Jones declaration that: i. ii. I was shocked to learn that a Notice of Lis Pendens had been filed and recorded under my name I have never seen this document before. (Declaration, Section 72, pg.21)

6. This is rebutted by the following evidence, i. Cathy Jones had also agreed as part of filing the complaint to prepare and file

a NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION , also called a lis penden. In a February 13, 2013 email I received, Jones confirmed her willingness and plan to provide the lis pendens, stating, The lis pendens is a form as well; if you can find it and send it to me, I will print it and sign it and fax it back to you as well -- you want to get that on file. Just search California forms for lis pendens. (Declaration,section 6, pg. 3) ii. On February 18, 2013, Attorney Cathy Jones confirms via email she is working on

the lis pendens document stating, I am working on the Lis Pendens right now (Declaration, section 8, pg.4) iii. On February 21, 2013, Attorney Jones updated me on her completion of the

lis pendens, Fax on its way. I dated it for tomorrow because I doubt you will have time to file it

11
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

today. (Declaration, section 9, pg.4) iv. Exhibit E of the declaration (Section 10, pg.4) is a NOTICE OF

PENDENCY OF ACTION document dated February 22, 2013, otherwise known as a lis penden. The lis penden was prepared by Attorney Cathy Jones, signed by Jones, and faxed on February 21, 2013. Jones faxed the document for the purpose of being recorded in her name with Los Angeles County. This is the exact same document she claimed in her declaration that she had never seen before. v. On February 27, 2013, Jones reconfirmed her knowledge of the 1 page lis

pendens document she prepared and faxed to me on February 21, 2013, stating, I agreed to hastily file a complaint for mortgage fraud so you could file a lis pendens -for that work, and a couple of hours to clean up the LiveWire complaint -- is what you currently owe me $1,800 (Declaration, section 12,pg.4, EXHIBIT F) vi. On February 28 2013, plaintiff sent Jones an email requesting Jones also

send via regular mail to the legal services firm being used in California, a new signed lis pendens document or the original signed lis penden Jones faxed on February 21, 2012. Jones received the email request titled, address for signed lis penden and responded in the affirmative, Sure. They would not take a fax? (Declaration, Section 13-17, pg.4) FALSE STATEMENT #3. 6. Jones made yet another false statement in her declaration that underpinned the May 2, 2013 Defendants motion, stating the fax number on the Complaint are not mine and I have not, nor do I have the ability to receive mail or facsimile from those sources. I had understood that the address, phone number, and fax merely place holders (Declaration, Section 5iii, pg. 3, Exhibit CC) Rebutting this is the fact Jones made frequent use of the webfax and had the password and login information. This is underscored by the fact Jones used the webfax for personal or other unrelated business use as proven by the income tax document Plaintiff cites, (Declaration, Section 5ii, pg. 3, Exhibit I) G. DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS FURTHER INVALIDATES JONES DECLARATION 6. The document Defendant Webb emailed to Jones which was the subject of Jones

12
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

declaration included in the May 2, 2013 motion, was not the same document shown at Exhibit CC. The document in Exhibit CC is a copy of a Notice of Pendancy which the Los Angeles County Recorder has processed and stamped with a unique bar code Identifier number. Whereas, the document Defendant emailed to Jones that Jones reviewed for her declaration had no stamp. Therefore, in addition to the above reasons to void Jones declaration and Defendants May 2nd Motion, for the reason that Jones declaration is based on a review of a document that was not verified or proven to be the same document recorded with the LA Recorder. Jones reviewed a document that did not have the Los Angeles County Recorder stamp and bar code, thus another reason her declaration which underpins the May 2, 2013 Defendants Motion, cannot be relied on and is void. H. DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO WITHDRAW OR UPDATE APRIL 23RD MOTION FOR SANCTIONS WAS UNLAWFUL AND ACT OF BAD FAITH 1. i. ii. iii. iv. v. Webb makes the following claims in the April 23rd motion for sanctions, From April 1, 2013 through April 17, 2013, I have repeatedly tried to communicate with Plaintiffs counsel the Webb Declaration attaches several written communications , none of which have resulted in a response. it is Plaintiffs attorney who is refusing to communicate after reasonable efforts by Defendants attorney to engage in such communications. Plaintiffs Counsel Refuses to Communicate, Let Alone Meet and Confer The Motion to Compel is made on the grounds Mr. Greenspan failed and continues to refuse to appear at his properly noticed deposition, despite an extensive effort by Defendants attorney to communicate with Plaintiffs attorney without success. However, Webb admits in his May 2nd Motion that everything changed days later, stating, a series of emails on Friday, April 26, 2013 and subsequent phone conversations commencing on Saturday, April 27, 2013 between Webb and Jones. 3. Webb simply chooses not to communicate about curing the subject of the April 23,

2.

2013 motion to compel and request for sanction . Instead Webb is focused on communicating with and getting Jones to provide a signed and notarized Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Pendency of Action and a declaration for his May 2, 2013 Motion. 4. Webb no time after the April 15, 2013 deposition date that was missed, attempts to

notice another Deposition date with Plaintiff. 5. Even after Webb files the April 23, 2013 motion to compel and for sanction, Webb

does not attempt to set another date for a deposition.

13
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

6.

Suddenly on April 26th, just 3 days after Webbs motion for sanctions because

Of a lack of communication with Plaintiff and Plaintiffs attorney, Webb admits he engages In a series of communications. Yet Webb not once between April 26th thru May 7th attempts to bring up the matter of the deposition with Jones. 7. In fact, Webbs strategy clearly is to bait Jones with the fact that a motion for

sanctions against her is outstanding, but to hide the fact such threat of sanctions in the pending April 23, 2013 motion could simply be mooted by Jones agreeing to set a deposition date for her Client. Webb decides he is better served to refocus his efforts on the documents he wants from Jones for the May 2nd motion. Therefore Webb conceals the urgency and claims he has made in the April 23, 2013 motion for sanctions, misleading Jones into believing the sanctions are only curable or relief available if Jones goes along with Webbs focus and plan he presents on April 27th in an email, proposing, If I get you the form would you also consider dismissing the law suit w/out prejudice then if your client gets a new atty or wants to appear in pro per he can. (Declaration, Section 59, pg.18) 8. Webb acted in bad faith by failing to try to act in good faith and to set a deposition

date after making the April 23, 2013 motion to compel a deposition and for sanctions. 9. Webb further had an obligation once he determined his priority had changed and

he engaged Plaintiffs counsel in working on documents helpful to Defendants for the May 2, 2013 Motion, and that Webb no longer wanted to depose Plaintiff as proven by Webbs failure to broach the issue of deposition once serial communication with Plaintiffs attorney began on April 26, 2013. This obligation by Webb was to withdraw the April 23, 2013 motion to compel or update the facts. Instead Webb acted unlawfully and in bad faith because he wanted to keep the threat of sanctions over the head of Jones. The Court should void the sanctions approved or stemming from the April 23, 2013 motion for the aforementioned reasons. I. UNLAWFUL THREATS INTERFERED WITH ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

1. Defendants threatened Plaintiffs counsel on multiple occasions, i. The misleading requests for sanctions vs. curable April 23, 2013 motion to compel Deposition: There are motions pending including requests for sanctions against you. (Declaration, Section 55, pg. 17) ii. The threat to get the State bar to sanction Jones,

14
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2. iii.

The state bar does not have current contact information on which is a s (Declaration, Section 55, pg. 17) Jones reported Webbs still further threats in an April 30, 2013 Instant Message, Because he tried to pressure me and vaguely threaten me, I put off the defense counsel until tomorrow. I am, however, on my way to the attorney's office across the street to review the documents he wants me to sign to release the Lis Pendens so that escrow can close for his clients on Friday. (Declaration, Section 75, pg. 21) Defendants threats and unlawful behavior resulted in Plaintiffs attorney Jones needing to hire an

attorney to protect her rights which created additional economic costs for Jones . Jones in turn became so scared and desperate that she both became an unreliable witness for the Defendants as proved earlier but also breached her fiduciary duty to Plaintiff thru ignoring the Attorney Client privilege, extorting Plaintiff for cash, and her actions taken to satisfy Webb in regards to the May 2, 2013 Motion. i. Jones on April 30, 2013, still Plaintiffs attorney of record emailed a threat and extortion demand: there is no more attorney client privilege. If you want to salvage any semblance of that, you will immediately pay me the $1,800 you owe me. (Declaration, Section 61, pg. 19) ii. Plaintiff attempted to immediately substitute Jones out as the attorney of record because Jones had tried and was continuing to try to extort Plaintiff. On April 30, 2013, Plaintiff sent Jones a pre filled out Substituttion of attorney form and offered to have it filed in Court on the same day, stating, if you sign sig page and fax to 310-957-2608, i will go serve via mail, go file w/court today, and scan back conformed court proof filing+ proof service (Declaration, Section 62, pg. 19) iii. Jones refused to execute the substitution of attorney, and emailed another extortion demand to make payment to Jones via Western Union, The attorney will be back in her office at 2:30 your time. I expect the signed substitutions of attorney to be faxed to her office by then. I also expect the Western Union number by that time, so that we may discuss your options. (Declaration, Section 63, pg. 19) iv. Plaintiff continued to plead with Jones to sign the substitution of attorney immediately, but Jones delayed and refused to sign the substitution of attorney because she had agreed to a deal with Defendants attorney Webb to file the notice of motion to withdraw the notice of lis penden, which only an attorney of record could effect. v. Plaintiff warned Jones that her refusal to let Plaintiff substitute in pro se while demanding more money was unlawful, stating in an April 30, 2013 email, ur just plain commiting criminal extortion each time u make demands, coupled with refusing to sign sub of atty u promised to sign today (Declaration, Section 65, pg. 19)

15
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.

Jones would not reveal on April 30, 2013, what the motive was behind her refusing to

let me file the substitution of attorney. However, such reason became clear after seeing the May 2, 2012 Supplementary motion prepared and filed by Defendant Webb. Webb describes how he was working with Jones on April 30 and May 1st and On May 1, 2013, I received an email from the attorney in Montana that contained the Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Pendency of Action (Declaration, Section 66, pg. 20) 4. Its clear that because Plaintiff would not give into Jones extortion attempt by paying

her money she demanded, Jones had delayed fulfilling Plaintiffs request for her to substitute out as attorney of record, solely as a tactic to harass and damage Plaintiffs court case. 5. Jones had unlawfully abandoned her client, instead working in an adverse

manner to allow Webb to file the May 2 Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Pendency of Action. 6. Defendants caused and induced Webb to breach her fiduciary duty, duty of care, and

violate her attorney client privilege in getting Jones to collaborate and aid in filing a Motion on or about May 2, 2012 that would seek to withdraw the Notice of Pendancy to aid Defendants and further help Defendants by making false claims in her declaration with no time for the Plaintiff to defend himself against both attorneys false statements. J. FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED THEFT, EXTORTION, AND CONVERSION 1. Defendants attorney Webb states in the April 23, 2013 Motion In order for the Plaintiff to be able to prevail against BJG, as distinct from the other Defendants, he must establish either personal knowledge by BJG of any improprieties with respect to the foreclosure sale prior to the sale and/or its direct involvement by representative of BJG in some impropriety, since there is a conclusive presumption that the sale is valid as against BJG without such knowledge or involvement. 2. However, Defendants conceal from the Court that after they file their demurrer in

March 2013, Defendants trespass onto the property, collude with the unlawful detainee, and Take possession of millions of dollars worth of Plaintiffs real property. 3. Thru the May 7, 2013 hearing, Defendants refused to identify the location of

Plaintiffs Real property and the continuous harassment and extortion can be seen in the string of emails Between Defendants and Plaintiff (Declaration, Section 23-49, pgs.6-12). 4. Therefore, Defendants counsel fails to inform the Court prior to the May 7, 2013

hearing that there is indeed an issue of wrongful possession of real property that his clients admit

16
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

they have no right to possess. 5. The Court should approve this motion to vacate simply for the fact that the Court now

has been presented evidence of Defendant BJG and Greenbergs possession of Plaintiffs real property During and thru the May 7, 2013 hearing. 6. Furthermore, without Courts vacating its ruling, Plaintiff would have never got

the chance to get basic discovery to learn who the representatives and shareholders of Defendant that bought the subject property, BJG Associates. Without this basic information of who BJG is, its impossible for Plaintiff to determine personal knowledge or improprieties. 7. The Court should vacate the ruling solely for this critical element of due process that has been

forfeited thru the Courts sustaining demurrer when the Court now has clear uncontested evidence of multiple improprieties that Defendants concealed cited herein and thru the evidence Defendants indeed took and have still possession of Plaintiffs personal and business possessions that Defendants removed from Subject Property which is real property and have destroyed much of it and converted a significant amount causing millions in damages to Plaintiff. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion to set aside and void any or all of the: i) April 18, 2013 ex parte hearing ii) April 18, 2013 Motion to amend hearing for Motion to Expunge iii) May 2, 2013 Supplemental Motion iv) May 7, 2013 hearing and/or subsequent ruling should be GRANTED. Dated: August 9, 2013 _________________ Brad Greenspan, Pro se

17
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID