Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 1 of 27
Yi Tai Shao, Esq. (CA 182768) Shao Law Firm, P.C. 1999 S. Bascom Avenue Suite 700 Campbell, CA 95008 Tel: (408) 873-3888 Fax: (408) 418-4070 Attorney for Appellant Yi Tai Shao and in Pro Per
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL, 9TH CIRCUIT YI TAI SHAO Appellant v. Judge Edward Davila, et al. Appellees
Case Number: 15-16817 3:14-cv-01912-WBS Declaration of Yi Tai Shao in support of Appellant’s Request to reverse the Judgment and to Amend the First Amended Complaint in her Opening Brief, and support of Motion for Judicial Notice supporting Appellant’s appeal pursuant to Rule 1006 of Federal Rules of Evidence
I, Yi Tai Shao declare: I am licensed to practice law in this Circuit since about 1996. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. At the pleading stage, I believe the District Court erred in not presuming my pleading of conspiracy to be true. See P.7, Lines 17-20 where Judge Shubb stated on November 21, 2014: “What I’m asking you is: What do
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
1
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 2 of 27
you have in your Complaint beyond the bare allegations that these judges acted with malice or corruption or conspired with the opposing party?” There are new facts after the First Amended Complaint was filed and after the parties filed motion to dismiss which should justify reversal of the dismissal orders with leave to amend the First Amended Complaint. Pursuant to Rule 1006, I hereby provide a summary to this Circuit about the new facts that should justify reversal of the dismissal orders with leave to amend. When party relies on Rule 1006 summary to support its position on appeal, at least where appellate court exercises de novo review, appellate court similarly may examine actual documents and court will permit expanded appendix to permit their inclusion. Moench v. Robertson (3d Cir. N.J. 1995), 62 F3d 553, cert. denied, (U.S. 1996), 516 US 1115, 116 S Ct 917, 133 L Ed 2d 847, abrogated in part, Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer (U.S. 2014), — US —, 134 S Ct 2459, 189 L Ed 2d 457, abrogated as stated in Whitley v. BP, P.L.C. (5th Cir. Tex. 2014), 575 Fed Appx 341. The court may reverse the judgment because the new facts are sufficiently put the mater in different respect. See, Kyle v. United States, 297 F.2d 507.
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
2
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 3 of 27
FIVE AREAS OF New facts A. Regarding new evidence of conspiracy on initial parental deprival 1. On August 23, 2010, in a closed chamber meeting, Appellee Judge Edward Davila, Appellee David Sussman and Michael Reedy (then attorney of SHAO), Judge Davila directed Michael Reedy not to file a motion to set aside and conspired to cause “permanent parental deprival” of SHAO’s child custody in chamber on August 23, 2010 by way of the “temporary order” of August 4 and 5 of 2010--everything is on hold and no review of the emergency screening (abbreviated to be ES) order of August 4 and 5 of 2010.
Evidence
Exhibit A attached (Rule1006Exh.Page001-10) (1) MF000157 (Rule1006Exh.Page001): A handwritten note of Laurel Savier on 8/25/2010 during the conference with Michael Reedy where her notes stated in the middle of the page: “Request and Order Pursuant --- ES says no review of it” On the upper portion of the note: “everything is on hold” at the lower portion of the note: “vexatious litigant 10/18 9 a.m. 1 hr hearing cannot file a response (2.) Michael Reedy’s deposition transcript P.44 (Exh.Page002)admitted that there was a chamber conference, and on Page 159(Exh.Page003), he admitted that the in chamber conference took place on August 23, 2010. (3.) Laurel Savier’s deposition transcript P68 showed that in the meeting she had with Michael Reedy on August 25, 2010, there
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
3
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 4 of 27
was a note taken that “everything is on hold.” (Exh.Page004)
2. Appellee Judge Davila, in instructing Michael Reedy not to defend SHAO, as Judge Davila wanted to declare SHAO as a vexatious litigant.
3. Appellee David Sussman was participating in the agreements of facts 1 and 2 above
4. Appellee David Sussman, as
(4) James McManis’s handwritten note of his meeting with Michael Reedy on 8/23/2010 as shown in MF000115. (Exh.Page005) He wrote: “All hearings are stayed—“ On Page 99 of Mr. McManis’s deposition transcript, he verified that that page. (Exh.Page006) Exhibit A attached Michael Reedy’s deposition P.78 (Exh.Page007) showed Mr. Reedy admitted that Appellee Judge Davila instructed him not to file a response to Sussman’s motion for vexatious litigant order, on Page 92 (Exh.Page008), Mr. Reedy testified that Judge Davila wanted to declare SHAO as a vexatious litigant. Exhibit A attached (1) Michael Reedy’s hand written notes of Appellee David Sussman’s words during 10/22/2010’s telephone conference as shown in MF000163(Exh.Page009): “Thanks for keeping things quiet. Appreciates professionalism. He would have jumped up & down if told he could not submit add’l papers on vexatious litigant issue.” (2) On Page 117 (Exh.Page010)of Michael Reedy’s deposition transcript, it showed that Mr. Reedy verified MF000163. Exhibit A attached
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
4
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 5 of 27
opposing counsel, offered free copies for Michael Reedy to reward his agreement to follow Judge Davila’s instruction not to defend SHAO B. Discovery of interested third parties who have manipulated state courts to block SHAO’s fundamental right to access the courts with their vexatious litigant prefiling order irregularly obtained from their client 5. Michael Reedy has long term regular social relationship with about 30 judges/justices in Santa Clara County through serving as an Executive Committee member of William A. Ingram American Inns of Court, a very small membership restricted club with 100-110 members only including including judges and 60-70 attorneys 6. Appellee Judge Theodore Zayner has long term regular social relationship with Michael Reedy through William A. Ingram American Inns of Court 7. Appellee Judge Patricia Lucas has 10+ long term regular social relationship with Michael Reedy 8. Justice Patricia BamattreManoukian has 10+ long term regular social relationship with Michael Reedy 9. Michael Reedy, Appellee Judge Zayner, Appellee Judge Lucas and Justice Patricia BamattreManoukian have regular close social relationship through being
On MF000163: “If less than 100 pp, no copying charge.”
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016
Deposition transcript of Michael Reedy, P.50
Deposition transcript of Michael Reedy, P.53, 54 Deposition transcript of Michael Reedy, P.47,49
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this circuit in this appeal
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
5
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 6 of 27
Executive Committee members of William A. American Inns of Court for 10+ years with about 15 meetings/meals a year 10. McManis Faulkner put on its website that Santa Clara County Superior Court is one of its “Representative Clients” 11. James McManis testified that he represented Santa Clara County Superior Court as its attorney in one instance 12. James McManis testified that he has about 25 judicial clients at Santa Clara County Superior Court, including judges, courtroom clerks, court reporters, bailiffs, Clerk, and a Justice at 6th Appellate District of State Court of Appeal, a Justice at California Supreme Court who he had provided free legal services as their attorney 13. Judge Lucy Koh, the judge dismissing Shao v. McManis Faulkner, James McManis, Michael Reedy, et al. at USDC without disclosing that she was a member of William A. Ingram Inns of Court and did not disclose her social relationship and colleague relationship with James McManis
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this circuit in this appeal, JN a (1) Deposition transcript of James McManis P.42 (2) Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this circuit in this appeal (1) Deposition transcript of James McManis. PP. 110, 120, 121, 122 (2) Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this circuit in this appeal
(1) Deposition transcript of Michael Reedy, P.52: about relationship through William A. Ingram American Inns of Court (2) Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this circuit in this appeal: James McManis has been serving as Special Master at SCCSC and USDC Judge Lucy Koh was working for SCCSC and now USDC and handled antitrust projects,
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
6
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 7 of 27
14. Judge Carol Overton, APJ at Shao v. McManis Faulkner, James McManis, Michael Reedy et al. at 112CV220571 of SCCSC dismissed the complaint on the court’s own motion on 2/21/2014 (the case was reactivated after a successful motion to set aside dismissal based on violation of due process); she did not disclose that she has 10+ years’ long term regular social relationship with Michael Reedy through William A. Ingram American Inns of Court and colleague working relationship with James McManis 15. James McManis, McManis Faulkner and Michael Reedy expressed during the jury trial of Shao v. McManis Faulkner 112CV220571 on December 9 and 10 of 2015 that they have critical interest in applying collateral estoppel of Judge Patricia Lucas’s custody order of Nov. 4, 2013 16 McManis Faulkner, James McManis, and Michael Reedy’s attorneys predicted appeal from Judge Lucas’s Order be dismissed and asked SCCSC to stay the jury trial—their excuse is that SHAO’s damages were not caused by their breach of fiduciary duty as SHAO has not obtained her child custody back 17. Within 24 hours of 3/11/2016’s case management
where JM has been working as a Special Master (1) Deposition transcript of Michael Reedy, P.52: about relationship through William A. Ingram American Inns of Court (2) Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this circuit in this appeal
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit: December 9 and 10, 2015’s trial transcript 3/11/2016’s Hearing Transcript in 112CV220571 Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit : December 9 and 10, 2015’s trial transcript 3/11/2016’s Hearing Transcript in 112CV220571 Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
7
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 8 of 27
conference at 112CV220571, SCCSC’s Appellate Unit clerk was escorted by her supervisor to go to the Court on Saturday, 3/12/2016, to issue a forged Notice of Noncompliance against SHAO in H040395 appeal (Judge Lucas’s custody order)
Circuit
18. 3/14/2016 (Monday) at 9:25 a.m., Presiding Justice Conrade Rushing at California Sixth Appellate District issued an email notice of dismissal
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit: Motion to vacate dismissal for violation of due process, remand and change place of trial/appeal in H040395 filed on 3/28/2016 with California Sixth Appellate District
19. 4/12/2016 PJ Rushing issued an order vacating dismissal of H040395’s appeal and granted judicial notice requested by SHAO, which includes the fact that McManis Faulkner, James McManis, Michael Reedy are interested third parties to the underlying family law case of 105FL126882 and there is a public view that the dismissal was manipulated by them. 20. McManis Faulkner, James McManis and Michael Reedy obtained vexatious litigant order from SCCSC on June 16, 2015 without disclosing their conflicts of interests 21. Appellee David Sussman and Tsan-Kuen Wang used MF’s
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit Motion to vacate dismissal for violation of due process, remand and change place of trial/appeal in H040395 filed on 3/28/2016 with California Sixth Appellate District
Motion to vacate dismissal for violation of due process, remand and change place of trial/appeal in H040395 filed on 3/28/2016 with California Sixth Appellate District
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
8
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 9 of 27
vexatious litigant orders within 5 days of issuance of the order in the underlying family court case against SHAO to object to SHAO’s motion to reopen discovery, which should be granted pursuant to Family Code Section 218
Circuit
22. Judge Zayner denied discovery re-open on 10/27/2014 and Judge Joshua Weinsteain denied discovery re-open in or about February 2016, disregard of Family Code Section 218 23. Judge Joshua Weinstein who succeeded Judge Zayner’s seat in the underlying family law case used MF’s vexatious litigant orders to cancel all motions SHAO has against Wang on 4/29/2016
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit
24. Presiding Judge Rice Pichon at SCCSC issued an order of 5/29/2016 to support Judge Weinstein’s blocking all motions to be filed by SHAO in the family law case with the excuse of MF’s vexatious litigant orders and required SHAO to seek her preapproval before filing the motions 25. Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Services terminated SHAO’s child support in August 2012 without any notice 26. Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Services filed a motion to modify
(Wang filed a declaration on 6/24/2015 to argue against discovery reopen motion based on McManis Faulkner’s vexatious litigant orders)
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit: April 29, 2016’s order of Judge Joshua Weinstein made without proof of service Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit May 29, 2016’s Order of PJ Pichon
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
9
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 10 of 27
terminate support which was heard on 5/3/2013 based on continued parental deprival of SHAO 27. SCCSC has discriminately enforced against SHAO in a harassment measure trying to take SHAO’s bar license and driver’s license 4 times in a year even though the prevailing law disallowed suspending existing licensees’ license
28. Wang’s fraud in concealing his rental income was discovered but SCCSC covered Wang up and took off from calendar all of SHAO’s hearings against Wang since 2014 29. Based on McManis Faulkner’s vexatious litigant orders, SCCSC filed a request at the OAH to dismiss SHAO’s complaint after SHAO propounded a subpoena asking documents of their contacts with McManis Faulkner and with Wang. DCSS did not deny McManis Faulkner’s contacts with them on this support issue of the underlying family court proceeding. 30. In late October 2016, SHAO obtained discovery from Chicago Title Insurance of evidence of Appellee Wang’s fraud on concealing rental income of $4,900 a month at the time the support order of 5/3/2013 was made.
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit For the recent enforcement, SCCSC did not garnish money as having no idea how much $ was at issue, but simply notify SHAO to suspend licenses, clearly aiming at harassing SHAO, not at the money Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
10
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 11 of 27
SCCSC has denied SHAO’s discovery over WANG since 2010. 31. On 11/23/2016, PJ Pichon at SCCSC unreasonably denied SHAO’s application for permission to file Request for Order to vacate 5/3/2013’s Order based on Wang’s perjured Income and Expense Declaration, without stating a reason; thus, SCCSC blocks entirely SHAO’s right to access to the court 32. PJ Rushing at Sixth Appellate District denied SHAO’s motion to reverse, remand with instruction to change place of trial re SHAO’s appeal from vexatious litigant order on 11/7/2016, and in the same afternoon 9th Circuit denied SHAO’s appeal from Judge Lucy Koh’ dismissing Shao v. McManis Faulkner,et al. with only 2 pages’ conclusive opinion without any discussion. 33. SCCSC and Sixth Appellate District jointly blocked SHAO’s access to the trial court and appellate court regarding Shao v. McManis Faulkner, et al. The jury trial was stayed indefinitely and the appeal was unable to proceed because SCCSC deterred records and transcripts from filing and PJ Rushing denied SHAO’s request to order court reporter to file transcript and to change designation of records to be by excerpts 34. SCCSC and Sixth Appellate District jointly blocked SHAO’s
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit
(1) Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit (2) November 17, 2016’s Order of PJ Conrade Rushing of Sixth Appellate District (3) November 23, 2016’s Order of PJ Pichon of SCCSC.
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
11
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 12 of 27
appeal from Judge Lucas’s Order for more than 2.5 years--- after dismissal out of March 14, 2016’s incident was unsuccessful 35. A reasonable person knowing all the facts will believe that McManis Faulkner has manipulated Judge Zaynor, Judge Lucas and Santa Clara County Superior Court in interfering SHAO’s life and liberty 36. Judge Zaynor’s cancelation of evidentiary hearing on 10/31/2011 was after the time SHAO made a prelawsuit demand over McManis Faulkner, without disclosing his conflicts of interests—relationship with interested third parties 37. Judge Lucas did not disclose her relationship with interested third parties
Circuit
38. Justice Patricia BamattreManoukian denied SHAO’s Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus, and Petition for Writ of Mandate regarding Disqualification of Judge Zaynor, without disclosing her conflicts of interests 39. Based on exposure of the interested third parties’ manipulations of the courts to an extend to block SHAO’s fundamental rights to access the courts, a reasonable person knowing all of the facts may cast reasonable doubt that the person
Motion to vacate dismissal for violation of due process, remand and change place of trial/appeal in H040395 filed on 3/28/2016 with California Sixth Appellate District
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 33) filed on 12/19/2016 with this Circuit
Motion to vacate dismissal for violation of due process, remand and change place of trial/appeal in H040395 filed on 3/28/2016 with California Sixth Appellate District
Motion to vacate dismissal for violation of due process, remand and change place of trial/appeal in H040395 filed on 3/28/2016 with California Sixth Appellate District
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
12
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 13 of 27
drafted Judge Lucas’s Order is likely one of the interested third parties. C. Appellees jointly suppress Wang’s mental disorders to maintain parental deprival in order to help McManis Faulkner’s case 39. Appellee Tsan-Kuen Wang’s life-threatening mental disorder that should legally justify immediate child custody change, was discovered on 9/15/2014, after the FAC was filed, after the parties filed motions to dismiss.
40. Appellee Tsan-Kuen Wang has used one of his therapist Carole Tait-Starnes to be the minor’s therapist, who had, concealed WANG’s mental disease, became Wang’s spy of the minor, and to make false report to John Orlando. 41. Judge Theodore Zaynor and BJ Fadem jointly suppressed WANG’s mental disease and refused to investigate on WANG’s mental status knowing the minor could be harmed by the dangerous life threatening mental disease for the dire efforts to block SHAO’s child custody return
(1.) CIGNA’s Verified Production of Claims records on Wang’s psychological services on 9/15/2014 (2) Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Kline filed on 12/14/2014 (MJN for Appeal) (3.) SHAO’s motion to modify child custody, motion to vacate 11/4/2013’s Order, and motion for mental examination of Wang were consistently denied by Appellee Judge Zaynor and Judge Weinstein (1.) CIGNA’s Verified Production of Claims records on Wang’s psychological services on 9/15/2014 (2) Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Kline filed on 12/18/2014 (1) 10/27/2014’s hearing transcript (2) declaration of Esther Alex Taylor filed with this Circuit, Document 215, on 11/25/2014 (Excerpts Vol. II) (3) docket sheet of 105FL126882
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
13
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 14 of 27
showing denials of motion to take mental examination
42. Carole Tait-Starnes should be designated as a Doe Defendant for knowingly failed to report Wang’s dangerous mental disease as a mandatory reporter D. Appellee Judge Zaynor, Appellee Mary Ann Grilli jointly planned to use Wang and Sussman’s false OSC re Contempt filed in 2013 to harm SHAO after releasing SHAO’s attorney without notice E. NEW FACTS REGARDING COUNTS 23 AND 25 AGAINST ATTORNEY GENERAL 43. In early 2015, Attorney General established Bureau of Children’s Justice with a mission to protect the rights of the children which has the enforcement power and legislative function including regarding childhood trauma and exposure to violence 44. The cases that BCJ is designed to address are (1) cases addressing systemic failures and/or
(4) 7/22/2011’s Order of Judge Grilli showing that it was asked by SHAO as early as in 2011 to take mental examination of WANG and that the normal practice should take both parties’ mental examination (MJN, Exh. 6) (2) Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Kline filed on 12/18/2014 (MJN, Exh. 1)
Motion for TRO (Docket NO. 185)
Motion for Judicial Notice supporting Appeal: 1. BCJ mission 2. BCJ overview 3. BCJ FAC
Motion for Judicial Notice supporting Appeal: 1. BCJ overview
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
14
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 15 of 27
severe, widespread harm against children served by a local public entity, private for-profit business, or nonprofit organization, (2) cases targeting broad pattern or practice violations of law in education, child welfare, or juvenile justice systems, (3) cases targeting policies or practices with a disproportionate effect on the most vulnerable children. The declarative reliefs fit into the cases that Attorney General is handling. 45. “As chief law officer of the State of California, Attorney General Harris is committed to seeing that laws and regulations enacted to protect children are consistently and effectively enforced.” 46. Attorney General has authority to issue opinions on questions of law for Congress and state agencies
2.BCJ FAC
BCJ overview
Attorney General’s Guidelines for Issuing Opinions on Questions of Law (MJN, Exh.6)
True and accurate copies of Exhibit A with Bates Stamped pages as described above are attached.
Dated: December 30, 2016
Respectfully submitted, Shao Law Firm, PC By____________________ Yi Tai Shao, Attorney for Appellant and in pro per
15-16817 Declaration of Yi Tai Shao pursuant to Rule 1006 in support of motion for judicial notice
15
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 16 of 27
EXHIBIT A
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 17 of 27
Rule1006Exh.Page001
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 18 of 27
1 2
3
t o be wasting Mr . Reedy's time d iscuss ing this. Q.
(BY MS. SHAO) i
11:11:31
Did you see -- did you see
Mr. McManis take notes when he was talking?
1 1: 11 : 49 1 1:11:51
4
A.
I don't remember.
11 : 1 2: 00
5
Q.
Okay.
1 1: 12:02
Is i t not true t hat on August 23rd,
6
2010, when you appeared with the court, you had an
11:12:10
7
in-chamber conference with Judge Davila and David
1 1 : 12:15
8
Sussman?
11:12:22
9
THE WITNESS :
10 11
Cou l d you read that .
I get a little confused when you ask,
13
THE WITNESS:
11:12:48 There was a chamber con fe rence
with Judge Davila and Mr. Sussman . Q.
11: 12:28 1 1 :12:30
(Record read . )
15
"Is it
not true?"
12
14
11 :12:26
(BY MS. SHAO):
1 1:12:49 11 : 12 : 51
Is the note for the conference
11:12:57
16
be t ween you and Mr. McManis on August 23rd, 2010,
11: 12: 59
17
reflect your conversation with Judge Davila and David
11: 13:07
18
Sus sman as far as all hearings and mo tions are stayed?
11 : 13 : 16
19
A.
I don't know.
20
Q.
Did you make a proposa l
11 : 13 :2 0 -- d id you ever make a
11 :13: 33
21
proposal to Judge Davila and Mr. Sussman to stay the
1 1 :1 3:36
22
entire proceeding of the underlying case?
11:13 : 40
23
A.
I don't remember.
11: 13 :47
24
Q.
Is it possible that you would tell Judge
11 :13: 54
25
Davila that the entire proceeding of I n re Ma rriage of
1 1: 13 :57
44
Atkinson-Bak.er Court Reporters www.depo.com
Rule1006Exh.Page002
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 19 of 27
1 2
Davi l a and Davi d Sussman on August 23rd, 2010? A.
04:11:14
As I recall, on August 23, 2010, Judge Davila
04 : 1 1:2 1
3
met i n chambers with Mr. Sussman and wi t h myself,
4
then came o ut.
5
that h ad been fi led , and the judge stated what was go i ng
04:11:46
6
t o happen on both pending mot ions and current motions .
04: 11 : 56
7
And I can go through those i f you want.
04 : 12 : 02
We
0 4:1 1 : 30
We talked about the d i fferent motions
04 :1 1 :39
8
Q.
Okay.
04:12 : 0 8
9
A.
I mean, it appea r s there were at least five
04 : 12 : 10
10
mo ti o n s pending be f or e the court at tha t
time.
04:1 2 : 1 2
11
(Simul taneous d iscussion.}
04:12:2 2
12
(Repo r ter c l arification.)
04 : 12 :23
13
MS. EVERSON :
14
15 16
the question out.
Q.
So wait, wait , wait .
Let's get
What ' s t he question?
(BY MS . SHAO):
So why he sa id this was -- y ou
took down during the he aring, not i ns i de the c hamber ?
04 : 1 2:23 04 :12: 25 04:12:28 04: 1 2 :2 9
17
A.
Correct .
0 4:12:32
18
Q.
Di d you take notes whi le you were inside the
04:12:33
19
chamber?
04:12:36
20
A.
I don ' t
21
Q.
Because you gave me a lot of notes today, and
reca ll .
0 4:1 2 :36
22
I -- could yo u i dent ify which one you took inside the
23
chamber?
24 25
A.
04: 1 2:3 7 04 : 12 : 40 04:12:45
I don't know i f I t ook notes d urin g the
meeting in chambers .
04: 1 2 : 4 6 04:1 2 :48
159
Atkinson-Baker Court Reporters www.depo.com
Rule1006Exh.Page003
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 20 of 27
1
di d you mean?
2
A.
I don ' t
3
Q.
What is MF157?
4
A.
Thi s appears to be my notes tak en on
5
August 25th,
6
Q.
7
know .
201 0.
Did you have a conversation with Michae l Reedy
for August 25th ?
8
A.
I don ' t reca ll .
9
Q.
When readin g this documen t , what did you write
10
" CWMR "?
11
A.
12
Reedy ."
13
Q.
That i s shorthand for "con fer with ~ i ,.e)l~~l I don ' t
So ,
recall the conversation.
is i t
f air to say that ---------
t h is page ref e rs to
---
14
your notes taken do wn because of conference wi t h Mic hae l
15
Reedy?
16
A.
As far as I can ~ell .
17
Q.
So, wou l d you p l ease read.
18
confusing to me .
This kind of
Wou ld you p l eas e read th is page.
19
A.
The ent ire page?
20
Q.
Yes .
21
A.
"Comp l ica t ed case, ev erythin g is on hold.
22
Status:
23
Mot ion to l imit a subpoena tha t
24
emplo yer In tel in te rms of t ime.
25
parentheses.
Would you p l ease.
Too motions on 8/23, vexa tious li ti ga nt . s he sen t 8/30:
to fa ther's TRO ( P)
"
in
68
LO\A;\ v-~ . Rule1006Exh.Page004
st\,\/;i .e-.-,
M 'F--O()D' ry
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 21 of 27
•
-~ I 2--~h . y,J ~ fb,.--:,
-~-
---
--=--T+ ~ -l- ~\ ~ A. v ~ /"Jz~~ _ ck) l 11v.~l-- -[!Jr ' h ~ ~ ~ ---i-+---
~
-~ -_.µ.._ --=--il,l
___
_::-_ ~ J ~
- - -- - I -
..._
-
l ~ C- -
-
c.- ~
.~rf!-I' f -------:c=
1t1/Z4.jtP_ ~
~-:; J- ___
-_ _1 --=--.:::.._==---&&-V ~fi7_·__ _
---. . ~ ~~ --;=-~~ -
~
-~"~~
'
~
- ct: .~_1_ - ~
~ -/z~~
---=-----::.::..~=--=--------
S ht~b.- --====:_ ==-------=----
Rule1006Exh.Page005
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 22 of 27
l
make copies.
2
(Off the record at 12:40 to 12:48 p . m. )
3
MS. SHAO:
4
Q.
Exhibi t
6
A.
Yes .
7
Q.
Thank you .
5
Back on the record.
D, in the middle of the photo, is that
you?
I'd like to mark Exhibit number E.
8
(Exhibit E was marked for identification.)
9
MS. SHAO:
10 11
A.
Do you recognize that?
Q.
Exh ibit Eis six pages unattached and I
recognize all six pages.
12
Q.
What is that?
13
A.
Well, the first three pages of Exhibit E which
14
are Bate stamped MF000112 to 114 are my notes of a
15
conference with Laurel
16
your case.
17
specifically stamped 115, 116 and 117, are my notes with
18
Michael Reedy in a meeti ng I had with him on August 23~
19
2010 .
20 21 22
Q.
The rest of these pages make up Exhibit E,
How about your memoranda to Catherine Bechtel? MS. EVERSON:
Objection.
Vague and ambiguous.
Lacks fou n dation.
23
MS. SHAO:
24
MS. EVERSON:
25
Sevier on August 20, 2010, in
It was not produced here. Let me just say that would be
part of your claim file that you have already received
Rule1006Exh.Page006
..
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 23 of 27
1
document?
2 3
MS . SHAO: Q.
4 5
01 : 03:41 Yeah.
(BY MS. SHAO): MS . EVERSON:
MS . SHAO:
7
THE WITNESS:
9
Did you see that part?
01:03:43
Do you see that two motions on
8/23 i s reflected on the document?
6
8
01:03:42
Q. La urel
01 : 03 : 48
Yes.
01 :03:50
Yes.
(BY MS. SHAO):
01:03:45
01:03:51
And is that what you told
Sevier?
01 : 03:52 01 : 03:53
10
A.
I don't reca l l.
01:03:56
11
Q.
Did you t el l Laurel Sevier that J udge Davila
0 1 : 04:03
12
says no review of emergency screening?
01:04:08
13
A.
I don't know.
01:04:15
14
Q.
Did Judge Davila tell you you cannot file a
01:04:18
15
response to the vexatious l itigan t s hearing?
01:04:21
16
A.
Yes.
01 : 04:35
17
Q.
Why so?
01:04 : 37
18
A.
Because the time to file an opposition passed.
01:04:40
19
Q.
Was i t not continued ti ll October 18th?
01:0 4 : 47
20
MS. EVERSON :
Objection .
01:04:51
21
THE WITNESS:
I don't know .
22
Q.
(BY MS . SHAO}:
Vague.
Ambiguous.
0 1 :04:53
He re in the notes, states that 1-hour hear ing.
Does
01:04:56
23
October 18th, 9:00 o'c l ock a.m.,
24
that cause you to recollect that the vexat i ous l it i gants
01 : 05:02
25
hearing was continued to October 18th?
01:05:07
01:04:58
78
Atkinson-Bak.er Court Reporters www.depo.com
Rule1006Exh.Page007
h11ck.,L -~ 1M if:-Ooo 1 5:71
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 24 of 27
1
Q.
2
(BY MS. SHAO):
In chamber meet i ng.
I 'm
sorry.
01:32:50
3
MS. EVERSON:
Objection.
4
THE WITNESS :
Cou l d you r ead that back,
( Record read . )
7
THE WITNESS:
8
Q.
9
I don't know .
(BY MS . SHAO):
From reading your -- t he first
10
A.
Righ t .
11
Q.
-- you sensed that
for respondent.
-
0 1 :32:51
01:33 : 21
paragraph of you r e - mail
12
0 1 :32:50
01 : 32:51
6
13
Lacks f oundat i on .
please.
5
01 : 32 : 48
l it i gant.
01 : 33 : 23 01 : 33 : 27 01 : 33 : 29 0 1 :33:31
Judge Davila wants to rule
Tha t means to dec l are me as a vexat i ous
Is that not correct?
0 1: 33 : 32 0 1 : 33:36 01 : 33:41
14
A.
That is correct.
01:33:43
15
Q.
Was there a reason why Judge Davi l a asked you
01 : 33:45
16
no t
17
vexatious lit i gant?
to f ile an opposition to t he mot i on to decl are
01 : 33 : 48 01:33:53
18
A.
No.
01:33:54
19
Q.
What was the reason that he asked you n ot to
01 : 33: 55
20
21
fi l e an oppos i t i on? A.
01 : 33:58
He did not ask me t o not file an opposition.
01:34 : 06
22
He stated t hat the t ime to fi l e a n oppos i tion had
01 : 34 : 10
23
l apsed , L-A- P- S-E - D; tha t it was too l a te to file an
01 : 34 : 16
24
oppos i tion .
01 : 34 : 24
25
Q.
That was before we got int o the case.
As a c i vi l
l it i gant , is it not correct when a
01:34:27
92
Atkinson-Baker Court Reporters www.depo.com
Rule1006Exh.Page008
/,
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 25 of 27
r/21.1/0
000163 Rule1006Exh.Page009
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 26 of 27
1 2
MS. EVERSON :
-- additional documents
02 : 32:54
Ba t es-stamped MF0007 through - 1 4 .
3
THE WITNESS :
02 : 32:56
And the addi tional pages show a
02:33:11
4
payment of $8,268.85 on September 20, 2010 .
My
02:33:13
5
calcu l ator shows a total payment of $98,988.22.
02:33: 22
6
Q.
(B Y MS. SHAO):
7
A.
You're welcome.
02:33:35
MS. SHAO:
02:34 : 4 4
8
9 10
Okay .
documents you produced because t here are some notes that
02:34 : 47
I want to introduce into evidence .
02 : 34:50
MS. EVERSON :
12
MS. SHAO:
13
(Off the re cord:
14
MS. SHAO :
Okay.
Take five minutes?
Yeah, five minutes. 2 : 35 p.m. to 2 : 43 p . m . )
So I would like to mark this as
02:43:17
(Exhibi t W marked for identif i cation . )
02 : 43:30 02:43 :50
Q.
(BY MS. SHAO):
18
A.
I recogni ze my handwr iting .
19
Q.
Under the line
20
for keeping things quiet. "
21
Sussman?
--~-
A.
02:34 : 58
02 : 43: 18
17
---
02 : 34:53 02:34:56
Exh ibit Number W.
16
22
02:33 : 32
I need to take a break to copy the
11
15
Thank you.
---
Do you recognize Exhibit W?
in the third line,
02:43:55 "Thanks
02: 44:01
-
02 :4 4 : 05
Was this spoken by David
Yes.
02:4 4 :12 02 : 44:13
23
Q.
24
A.
-----....
Yes.
02:44:21
25
Q.
What does he mean, according to your
02:44:23
He thank you
things qu i et?
02 :4 4 : 17
117 Atkinson-Baker Court Reporters www.depo.com
Rule1006Exh.Page010
Case: 15-16817, 12/30/2016, ID: 10251173, DktEntry: 38-2, Page 27 of 27
![arXiv:1703.02375v4 [cs.LG] 20 Dec 2017 - Research at Google](https://p.pdfkul.com/img/300x300/arxiv170302375v4-cslg-20-dec-2017-research-at-goog_5a5f8cd61723dd14cb9bb134.jpg)
