Civil 3

Civil case 94-05108 Continued.

CV 94-34   To Index

EDMUND D. KAHN.  ATTORNEY AT LAW January 24, 1995

REF: Loeb Vs Van Zanten.  #CV94-05108

 TO: Leonard Van Zanten                                                                                   

 Dear Mr. Zanten:

 We have received your Appeal from Arbitration and Motion to Set and we are awaiting action by the Court setting this matter for a trial in the Superior Court in Phoenix, Arizona.

We are presupposing that you have filed a "Deposit on Appeal" as required by Rule 7(b) of Uniform Rules of Procedure for Arbitration.

You are quite right in criticizing the form of Arbitration Award, which we submitted to the Arbitrator.  I failed to proofread the proposed form of Arbitration Award and evidently the Arbitrator signed and filed it relying on me to get it right.

I am sorry that you have concluded that the Arbitrator and I were engaged in some form of "fraud".

I understand your position in this case based upon the fact that State Farms insured had her right turn signal on, you relied on the assumption that she would, indeed, turn right and, instead, she drove straight ahead.

It is evident that the Arbitrator rejected your theory of what we call comparative negligence that is that any damages against you should be diminished by a percentage, which reflects Mrs. Loebís negligent contribution to the accident.

Under the circumstances we are willing to compromise by agreeing to settle the case in return for an amount less than the Arbitration Award.

We do not completely understand the reference in your appeal to Rule I (e)(6) Rule I set the procedure for determining whether or not a case can be sent into Compulsory Arbitration.  In Maricopa County the limit is $50,000.00 and in deciding whether or not the Award sought exceeds that amount the Court does not count interest, attorneys fees or costs.

Since the Complaint in this case did not exceed $50,000.00 it was properly sent into Compulsory Arbitration.

As pre-judgment interest is concerned, the Complaint requested such relief, which is recognized by the Courts in Arizona.  I have attached a "Research Memorandum".

As to costs they are controlled by Rule 5(a) of the A.R.C.P. for Arbitration authorizing us to submit a Verified Statement of Costs after we receive the Arbitration decision.

Under the circumstances we are willing to accept a settlement of 90% of the Arbitration Award or $8,150.40 and we will waive any post-judgment interest if you make payment on or before February 15, 1995.

If you have any questions or comments about this matter please contact me.

Very truly yours.  Arthur W. Vance.  

CV 94-35

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN.  Riverside CA.  January 28-95

State Farm Vs Van Zanten                                CV94-05108

TO: Edmund D Kahn.                                                           

Dear Mr. Vance (co Kahn)

Received your reply.  Enclosed is copy of reference to I (e) (6) this was as per your direction in your suit brought against, me, signed, and dated by Mr. Kahn.  I feel that for as much as I am a man of my word I expect the same of others, regardless therefore as to what the Court may allow, or what judgment or award, or argument may have been in any other case - our argument should be held upon our word or contentions....  In view of this I felt your claim for interest and costs unjustified, and since the same was written and signed by you - there could be no claim of ignorance for which reason I thought it fraudulent.

I admire your sentiment to settle, but your current offer amounts to a sum in excess of what you previously offered (copy enclosed).  I now wish you to understand that at no time past present or future am I or will I be able to view your client free of contributory negligence - in view of which she should pay all of her own damages.  And I am prepared to defend all of my arguments to the very end - even to the Federal Supreme Court should I have to, yet I am not beyond settling to some cost to me.  A more realistic figure to me would be 50%.

Since thus your client's cost were 8150.40, and damage to my vehicle were 2700.81 a total of 10,851.21, 50% of which being 5,425.61.  This figure less paid cost to my vehicle of 2700.81 leaves 2,724.80 for me to contribute towards a 50% settlement.

In your favor however I am willing to contribute 50% towards the 8,150.40, a sum of 4,075.20 hence; this payment to you can be made immediately upon your acceptance. 

Yours.  Leonard Van Zanten.

CV 94-36

EDMUND D. KAHN.  ATTORNEY AT LAW.  TUCSON, AZ

Arthur W. Vance February 6, 1995

TO:  Leonard Van Zanten, Riverside, and Ca.

Re: State Farm & Loeb v. Zanten                      #CV94-05108

Dear Mr. Zanten:

We have now received and caused to be filed, an Amended Arbitration Award, which cures the previous error as to your appearance at the Arbitration Hearing.

Thank you for your letter dated January 28, 1995 in which you offer to settle this case for $4,075.20.  I am afraid that this offer is not adequate under the circumstances.

First of all you're repeated reference to the Uniform Rule of Procedure for Arbitration Number I (e)(6) as to interest and costs is wrongly applied.  This rule pertains to the Courts initial decision as to whether or not the case is subject to Compulsory Arbitration and does not in anyway control the amount of the final award nor does it limit arbitration awards as to interest or costs.

Your reference to our "Plaintiffs' Offer of Judgment" is also misplaced since Rule 68 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure states that the maximum effective period of offers is sixty (60) days after service of the Summons and Complaint.  Since you filed no acceptance of our offer it was withdrawn as a matter of law some time ago.

Our current settlement negotiations are based on the possibility that on appeal in a trial de novo (complete new hearing) the finder of fact may decide that Ms. Loeb was contributory negligent and apportion some percentage of liability to her so as to reduce her recovery to some extent.

Assuming that you have properly perfected your appeal you will get another "bite out of the apple".

However, if we prevail, you will be faced with a judgment of $9,056.71, plus additional trial costs and interest at the rate of 10% per annum from December 21, 1995 until paid.

As to any further appeal, I think that you will find that on appeal of the trial result will be based on the trial record and can only succeed if some procedural error occurs.  Under the circumstances we will agree to settle the case at this time for $ 7,650.00

Very truly yours, Arthur W. Vance

CV 94-37

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA

MARICOPA COUNTY

 February 8 1995                                     / Filed FEB 9 1995

HON.  WILLIAM J. SCHAFER, III        / NO CV 94-05108

MARGARET LOEB, et al. Edmund D. Kahn

v. 

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN 

Leonard Van Zanten  

An Appeal from Arbitration and Motion to Set for Trial having been filed,   IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. This matter is set for trial to the Court on March 7, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. 

Estimated length of trial: I day. 

THIS IS A FIRM TRIAL SETTING.

2.  A joint pretrial statement in accordance with Uniform Rule VI shall be filed not less than five judicial days prior to this trial date. 

3. In addition to the information required by Uniform Rule VI, counsel are to identify in/with the joint pretrial statement all deposition or other transcribed testimony which it is proposed will be offered, other than what may be offered for impeachment.  The testimony which is to be offered is to he identified with reference to page and line numbers.  Objections, if any, to such testimony and to the reasons for such objections are also to be set forth. 

4. Counsel are to make arrangements with the Clerk for exhibits to be marked prior to trial.

CV 04-38

EDMUND D. KAHN ATTORNEY AT LAW

Arthur W. Vance                                           February 22, 1995

TO:  Leonard Van Zanten  

Riverside CA                                                Re: State Farm & Loeb v. Zanten  

Dear Mr. Van Zanten:

This letter will memorialize our phone conversation on February 17` 1995 during which you offered to settle this case for the sum of $6,000.00, including an immediate payment of $4,000.00 and monthly payments thereafter of $500.00 until the entire amount is paid.

We are willing to accept your offer and you will find attached a Settlement Agreement, Stipulation for your signature.

Please sign the original document in the appropriate place, have your signature notarized and return the original to our office immediately so that we can file it with the Court, and avoid any appearance at the trial which is now set for March 7, 1995 at 10:00 a.m.

Also send with this document, a money order or cashier check in the sum of $4,000.00 made payable to State Farm Mutual/Automobile Insurance Company as the subrogee of Margaret and Samuel Loeb.  

Yours truly

Arthur W. Vance

Enclosures - Settlement Agreement.

CV 94-39

LAW OFFICES OF EDMUND D. KAHN

TUCSON' ARIZONA

Arthur W. Vance, Attorney for Plaintiffs

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

MARGARET LOEB, et al.,                        NO. CV 94-05108

Plaintiffs,                                                     SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,

Vs.                                                               STIPULATION

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN,                    Assigned to Judge Schafer  

Defendant. _________________________________________________

The parties to this case have agreed to settle the matter and they agree that Defendant, Leonard Van Zanten, will pay upon execution of this document the sum of $4,000.00 to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as the subrogee of Margaret and Samuel Loeb and therefore, will pay the sum of $500.00 per month beginning on April l, 1995 until the total sum of $6,000.00 is paid in full to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

It is stipulated that the Court, upon filing of this document, will enter a Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant, consistent with the Arbitration Award in this case as though no Appeal had been filed.

Plaintiffs agree not to execute or otherwise attempt to collect on this Judgment, as long as the above payments are made and when the total amount of $6,000.00 is paid as set out above, Plaintiffs will file a full satisfaction of this Judgment.

If, for any reason, the payments are not made as set out herein, Plaintiffs will be free to collect on the Judgment minus a partial satisfaction. 

DATED on February 22, 1995.

LAW OFFICES OF EDMUND D. KAHN.

Arthur W. Vance Attorney for Plaintiffs

CV 94-40

LAW OFFICES OF EDMUND D. KANN

TUCSON, ARIZONA   Arthur W. Vance, Attorney for Plaintiffs

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

MARGARET LOEB, et al.,                   /         NO. CV 94-05108

Plaintiffs,                                                /

Vs.                                                          / ORDER

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN,               / Assigned to Judge Schafer  

Defendant.                                            / ___________________________

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Leonard Van Zanten for the sum of $8,108.61, plus interest in the sum of $769.35, plus costs in the sum of $178.75, the whole aggregating the sum of $9,056.71, plus interest at the legal rate of 10% per annum from the date of Judgment until paid (less pre-judgment interest), plus accruing costs. 

DATED: _______________                         ________________________________

                                                                       JUDGE WILLIAM J. SCHAFER III

CV 94-41

Leonard Van Zanten, Riverside, CA

TO:   Arthur W Vance, c/o Edmund D. Kahn.  Feb 27-95   Tucson AZ.

Mr. Vance.

I am in receipt of your letter, and enclosures.  You should however have notified me sooner, since I did not hear from you, as you said you would, I was forced to proceed with a joint pre-hearing statement currently in the mail to you.

Regarding the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT STIPULATION, which you have prepared, it has some faults as also an insult that is to be corrected.  For one; it simply cannot be as if no appeal had been filed, since I have yet to collect on that on the great day of the tribunal in the presence of the Almighty Judge.

Contrary to your thoughts, it is not as though you shall at any time attain victory, the fact that this day by the will of my Father I am turning the other cheek is in no way to your advantage, for whereas before you were liable to the Court in sevenfold, now, by your own choice, you will be liable in seven-hundred fold.  In the day of the high tribunal you will understand this.

Secondly, it is not necessary to add insult to agreement, if I agree to forward a sum, then it is so.  My word is not like the children of men, since I for one am a son of the Most High God, to us death is preferred over falsehood.  You wish to make a judgment of the court for an amount different than our settlement to collect on in the event I should default upon my word.  But you judge me according to your own standards, we as children of God, do not hold by such standards, and to doubt upon our word of honor is nothing short of an insult.

I have prepared a new settlement agreement for you to affix your signature upon, and a new ORDER for Judge Schafer III to endorse.  While therefore the originals are in the mail to you - I am faxing you this letter and enclosures together with a copy of cashiers check in the amount of $ 6000 00.

In order therefore to settle this matter speedily - if you will endorse my fax copy and FAX the same back to me, I will forward the actual cashier check the very same day.  Afterwards upon receipt of the originals and the cashiers check you may sign the original and forward a copy of the same to me, and forward the order for Judge Schafer III to the court to arrive there before our trial date of March 7.

You see I am giving you my trust wit trout a notary or even an original.

Leonard Van Zanten.

CV 94-42

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN, RIVERSIDE CA.

DEFENDANT. 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

MARGARET LOEB, et al.,            / NO. CV 94-05108

PLAINTIFFS,                                 /  SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, 

 VS.                                                 /  STIPULATION

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN,       /  Assigned to Judge Schafer  

DEFENDANT.                             /____________________________

The parties to this case have agreed to settle the matter, and they agree that defendant Leonard Van Zanten will pay upon execution of this document the sum of $ 6000.00 to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as the subrogee of Margaret and Samuel Loeb.

The parties to this case henceforth agree that with the payment of cashiers check in the amount of $ 6000.00 as noted above ALL DEMANDS of the plaintiffs in this matter have been met against the defendant, and are accordingly dismissed.

It is stipulated that the Court, upon filing of this document, will enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in the sum of $ 6,000.00 And furthermore, that the appeal filed by the defendant shall accordingly be dismissed before this court. 

DATED on February 27 1995.

 Signed          ____________________

CV 94-44

Leonard Van Zanten.                                              March 13-95

TO: Arthur W. Vance.  Law office of Edmund D. Kahn

Mr. Vance

 The Proverb says; "A fool's mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to himself.".  And Psalm 7; "Behold, the wicked man conceives evil, and is pregnant with mischief, and brings forth lies.  He makes a pit, digging it out, and falls into the hole, which he has made.  His mischief returns upon his own head, on his own plate his violence descends."

These words now apply to you Mr. Vance, and Mr. Kahn.  You thought to trick me with an absurd agreement - making a deal for a lesser sum but having a judgment for a greater sum - so that later in time when you would receive one of the payments so stipulated.  You would merely hold it back until after the due date, and then proudly, as also deceptively, declare me in default, and of course proceed to collect on the greater, the entire judgment.

You are not however dealing with a fool, even though you might think of Judge Schafer and me as fools.  Accordingly I rewrote the form to jibe with the facts, and putting the originals in the mail to you, I also faxed you the same on Monday morning the 27th of February for you to endorse what you had previously agreed to, and to fax the same back to me after which I was to forward the Cashiers check to you, payment in full, PROVIDED you would act responsibly and return the same that very same week so that I would not on your account be forced to go all the way to Phoenix to appear in Court on the 7th of March - lest I should lose out on my appeal through default.

I then called your office on the 28th of February and spoke to the secretary who informed me that you (Mr. Vance) would be in Wednesday the next day.  Then again I called and spoke with your secretary on Thursday, reminding her to remind you to send the signed agreement by fax.  Next, at 20:24 on Thursday evening (evidence enclosed) I faxed you the note stating that you had yet one day left to fax the agreement or the deal would be off.

Since then you did not bother to reply, nor bothered to send anything the following Monday, not even a simple phone call, the matter was rendered academic, I had not choice but to go to Phoenix before Judge Schafer - to now instead defend my right's and my innocence, and no longer play games with you - as I in righteousness, after the will of my Father, did in turning you the other cheek, or as He said; "If one sues you for your shirt give him your coat also."

The Lord now has seen my righteousness and heard my plea to return your malice upon your own head, for in your wickedness with lies and with falsehood before Judge Schafer you defaulted on the day of our trial, which as the letter of the court stated "was a firm setting."

For O what a foul thing you did in calling the clerk of the Court on the 6th of March to call off the trial on the basis of what YOU KNEW was a foul and malicious lie, that we had settled.

And when I arrived at the court on the day of our trial, you perjured yourself once more before Annette (the clerk), and before Judge Schafer, telling them, or making them believe as if you had mailed the signed agreement to me on Friday the 3rd of March (which to this day March 13 I have yet to receive).  If, and I repeat, IF indeed you had done so on the 3rd, and mailed it one day delivery, it might per chance have been just barely in time to properly call off the trial - as it would be in writing before Judge Schafer before 10 O'clock of the 7th.

So you see how it is true what I been telling you all along - that wickedness does not pay, and that righteousness shall indeed prevail.  You have held judge Schafer and Annette the clerk, as also me, up for fools with your lies and your falsehood.

You may have had an arbitrator in your pocket, but do not expect to have Judge Schafer so easily in your pocket, since he is a Judge, an ambassador of God, who in their calling are prone to heed the proverb where it is written; "It is not good to be partial to a wicked man, or to deprive a righteous man of justice.

Leonard Van Zanten

CV 94-45

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN.  RIVERSIDE CA.

DEFENDANT. 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

MARGARET LOEB, et al.,      /       NO. CV 94-05108

PLAINTIFFS,                                 /       PETITION TO DECLARE DEFAULT.  AND

VS.                                                   /       COUNTER SUIT FOR DAMAGES.

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN,       /

DEFENDANT.                               /____________________________________________

TO: JUDGE SCHAFER III.        

 I the defendant Leonard Van Zanten hereby petition the court to declare the plaintiff's and their counsel IN DEFAULT, AND RENDER JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF'S, AND FOR THE DEFENDANT.  For as much as not only did they NOT SHOW up for the trial duly set and of which they were duly notified, and knowledgeable.

But equally as much since plaintiff's practiced to get the trial canceled through falsehood, making it appear as if there was an agreement between plaintiff and defendant, which by plaintiff's knowledge was nothing more but gross and malicious lies.

I the defendant Leonard Van Zanten hereby petition the court to charge the plaintiff's and their counsel with MALICIOUS CONTEMPT OF COURT, and to take action against them as the court sees fit.

And I the defendant Leonard Van Zanten hereby petition the court to charge plaintiff's by entering judgment against plaintiff's and for the defendant for the costs which the defendant had to bear in coming to the court for the trial date, and then not receiving said trial through the deception of the plaintiff's in the amount of $ 560.04.

Signed this day March 13 1995

Leonard Van Zanten Defendant

CV 94-46

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN                         FAX MESSAGE

TO Arthur W. Vance

FROM Leonard         SUBJECT CV 94-05108

Mr. Vance.

I faxed you the papers last Monday, called twice, and no reply

If I am forced top appear at the court this Tuesday morning while I am supposed to be at two other places, donít expect our deal to be going through.

I am not coming to Phoenix for nothing; you have yet one day left.

(Copy of Fax printout)     Transmit confirmation report.

No                               :  001

Receiver                      : 16028813841

Transmitter                  : Leonard-Van Zanten

Date                             : Mar 02,95      20:24

Time                            : 00'43

Mode                            : Norm

Pages                           :   01

Result                           :  OK

CV 94-47

Leonard van Zanten                                              March 13 1995

TO: ANNETTE    Clerk of the Court.  Superior Court of AZ.

Dear Annette.

Attached are:

(a) Petition for Judge Schafer to declare plaintiff in default, and supporting evidence to plaintiff falsehood and lies made to you and accordingly to judge Schafer.

(b) Letter from me to plaintiff listing the events leading up to and regarding the matter.

PS; Inform judge Schafer of these items listed above and hand him also this letter to you - if therefore judge Schafer is contend to render a default judgment against the plaintiff without any further trial date - so be it.  Or if not so, please set another date for trial in which - before judge Schafer I may vindicate myself against the falsehood of the plaintiff.

They knowingly lied to you Annette in telling you that we had an agreement - as the evidence attached will show.  Moreover, the day when I was with you in the office in the court, and they reported to you over the phone that they had mailed the signed agreement to me on Friday the 3rd of March, even that was a lie, since to this day March 13th, ten days later I have yet to receive it, while it is a confirmed fact that the postal service takes from 3 to at most 5 days to deliver such mail.

Not that the mailing of that agreement on that Friday would have done them any good, since I duly warned them ahead of Lime that if I did not receive it on that Friday - there would be no agreement.  So then judge for yourself Annette - why did they not fax it to me on that Friday?  Or if they wanted to twist my arm to extend the day - why did they not mail it one-day delivery so I might receive it on the Saturday thereafter?  Not that this would have done them any good either since I was so occupied that particular Saturday, that had I received it by afternoon, I could not have returned the paper to you in time before the day and hour of the trial.

As I saw it when I was in your office - they mailed it that Friday full well knowing that it would not possibly arrive in time for me to forego the trial.  But now at this date; not yet having received their so called claim, I firmly believe that they never did mail it that Friday, that instead they lied to you - as it is second nature for these men to do.  It will be interesting to see what postal date there will be on the envelope if and when I do get it.

CV 94-48

Law offices of Edmund D. Kahn

Arthur W. Vance, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

Margaret Loeb, et al.                /     No. CV 94-05108

Plaintiffs,                                   /     PLAINTIFF 'S OPPOSITION TO

                                                               /     TO DECLARE DEFAULT

Vs                                              /      and: COUNTERSUIT FOR

Leonard Van Zanten, et al.    /       DAMAGES  

Defendants                              /       Assigned to Judge Schafer,

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the subrogee of Margaret and Samuel Loeb and the real party in-interest so far as the Plaintiffs are concerned, and for their opposition to Defendant's Petition to Declare Default and Counter-suit for Damages state as follows:

1.  On February 8, 1995 the Court ordered this post arbitration matter to trial on March.  7, 1995 at 10:00 Am.

2.  Prior to the receipt of the Court's Order Plaintiff had initiated settlement negotiations by letter on January 24 -1995

3.   Such negotiations came to a successful conclusion when on February 27, 1995 Mr. Van Zanten mailed to counsel for the plaintiffs the original of a Settlement Agreement, Stipulation, and order.  Upon receipt of the above document already executed by Mr. Van Zanten, we executed it a sent it to the Court through our attorney services (see exhibit I) We mailed the fully executed Settlement Agreement on March 2, 1995 to Mr. Van Zanten (see Exhibit 2/Affidavit of Becky Villalba).

4. During the period from March 1, 1995 until March 7, 1995, our office received various recorded phone messages and calls from Mr. Van Zanten.  During this period, Mr. Arthur W. Vance made repeated attempts to return these calls but there was no answer.

5.   On March 5, 1995, we received a phone call from the Court's staff (Annette) asking if the matter was going to go forward.  We assured the Court's staff that the matter had been settled, and that the settlement documents had been filed with the Court on March 3, 1995 by our attorney's service.

 6.    On March 7, 1995, the Courts staff called to say that Mr. Van Zanten was present in the Courtroom and that the Court had not received the settlement documents.  Upon the instructions of the Court's staff, we immediately faxed to the Court copies of the documents.

 CONCLUSION:

We have not received any communication from the Court as to what took place in open Court on March 7, 1995, so we do not know whether or not the proposed Order settling the case has been signed by Judge Schafer.

We believe that counsel for Plaintiffs made every reasonable effort to effect settlement and to keep in communication with both the Defendant and the court,

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for an Order dismissing defendants Petition to Declare Default and Counter-suit for damages.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of March 1995.

Arthur W. Vance.  Attorney for Plaintiffs

CV 94-49

Law offices of Edmund D. Kahn.

Arthur W. Vance,   Attorneys for Plaintiffís

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

Margaret Loeb, et: al.,                  /    No. CV 94-05108

Plaintiffs,                                              /    AFFIDAVIT of BECKY VILLALBA

                                                                     /    IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTíS

 Vs .                                                            /    PETITION TO DECLARE DEFAULT

                                                                    /    AND COUNTERSUIT FOR

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN, et al.    /     DAMAGES

Defendants                                  /     Assigned to Judge Schafer

                                                                   

STATE OF ARIZONA 

COUNTY OF PIMA           (SS)

I, Becky Villalba, am a paralegal working at the law office of Edmund D. Kahn.

On March 2, 1995, I mailed a copy of the fully executed Settlement Agreement to Mr. Leonard Van Zanten and left a message with Judge Schafer's office that the Settlement Agreement was going to be filed on March 3 - 1995 and that the hearing of March 7, 1995 was therefore canceled.

On March 6, 1995, I left another message with Judge Schaferís office that the Settlement Agreement documents were filed on March 3, 1995 and that the hearing was not necessary.

On March 7, 1995, I received a call from Annette of Judge Schafer's office in which she informed me that she did not receive the Settlement Agreement and that Mr. Van Zanten was present for the hearing.  I informed Annette that the Settlement Agreement was executed and filed on March 3, 1995, and informed her if it was possible that the settlement Agreement was filed in Judge Schafers box.  She stated that it was possible on the basis that they were in another building and that if I could fax a copy of the Settlement Agreement.  Therefore, I faxed a copy of the Settlement Agreement.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

__________________________ Becky Villalba

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 22nd day of March 1995, by Becky Villalba.  Notary Public (Maria A. Steward) my Commission Expires: (2-14-97)

CV 94-50

Leonard Van Zanten.  Riverside Ca.

DEFENDANT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

MARGARET LOEB, et al.        /       NO. CV 94-05108

PLAINTIFFS,                                 / RESPONDS TO PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION

VS,                                                  /  TO PETITION TO DECLARE DEFAULT

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN,       / AND COUNTERSUIT FOR DAMAGES  

DEFENDANT.                              / ______________________________________

TO JUDGE SCHAFER III.

1.   Your Honor, The essence of this case revolves around the fact that the Plaintiff failed to present himself at the hour of the trial, but through falsehood, fraud, and perjury before the court managed to get the trial canceled. 

2.  Exhibit A, (Letter of Feb 27-95) And Exhibit B, (Fax letter of 3-2-95) clearly show that a settlement WAS ONLY TO OCCUR IF AND WHEN A SIGNED COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WAS FAXED TO ME BY NO LATER THAN 3-2-95.  Which was so I would be able to forward a signed copy to you BEFORE the trial date, and not be forced to appear in court in Phoenix.

3.  Plaintiff through his own negligence failed to do so - while being very well aware of the fact on 3-2 95 already there was NO settlement agreement of any kind.

WHEREFORE all stipulation and contention of the plaintiff to you, to the court, and to me as well - to the contrary, are lies and falsehood. 

4.  ACCORDINGLY Plaintiff's opposition to my petition and counter-suit, even if its contents were true, is irrelevant. 

5.  Nevertheless; to show to your honor the falsehood of plaintiffs claim in opposition: If there is any truth in item of plaintiff's opposition let him show a letter with a postal date to correspond to his claim . . ..  For as of this date April 3 -95, God is my Witness, I have yet to see or receive that letter (obviously because it never was mailed) 

6. Item IV likewise is lies and falsehood.  I had given Mr. Vance not only my Home and Business phone number, but my fax number and my pager number, so that anyone could get a hold of me anytime day or night.  The reason therefore that Mr. Vance never got to speak to me was because HE NEVER BOTHERED TO RETURN MY CALLS JUST AS HE NEVER BOTHERED TO FAX THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

And to prove my contention Herewith enclosed as Exhibit X, are copies of my telephone bill showing all the calls and faxes that I made to Tucson, as well as many calls made by me to other people and numbers during these daytime hours, - showing that regardless of the fax and the pager IF HE HAD TRIED ONLY MY HOME PHONE HE WOULD HAVE REACHED ME.

7.  Item V and VI of plaintiff's opposition is nothing short of FRAUD BEFORE THE COURT as evidenced by the foregoing statements.

8.  Plaintiff further committed a grave sin, that before the Most High Court - is worthy of the sentence of death; by coercing and dragging a certain Becky Villalba in with their falsehood to have her as well perjure herself before the court in the AFFIDAVIT of her.  A crime that will not be forgotten.

DEFENDANT DATED.  4-3-95

CV 94-52 

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY

April 12, 1995                      HON. WILLIAM J. SCHAFER III

NO CV 94-05108

MARGARET LOEB, et al.                         Edmund D. Kahn  

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN                               _________________________

Leonard Van Zanten

On February 27, 1995, counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant filed with the Court a "Settlement Agreement' Stipulation" and included with it a proposed order dismissing this case.

On March 13, 1995, the defendant sent to the Court a "Petition to Declare Default.  And: Counter-suit for Damages" indicating that the agreement he signed (along with plaintiff's counsel) was false.

In view of the defendant's petition, this Court will treat this case as not being settled and will reset it for trial on August 30, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. 

Estimated length of trial: 1 day (to the Court). 

Proposed form of Order (of dismissal) is filed unsigned.

CV 94-54

Leonard Van Zanten.  Riverside, CA

TO: SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA. 

Maricopa County. 

June 10 - 95                             Case NO: 94-05108

Margaret Loeb, et al

Vs

Leonard Van Zanten. ___________________________________

TO: William J. Schafer III.

I am in receipt of your letter wherein the above case is reset for trial on AUGUST 30, 1995 at 10.00 AM.

In reference thereto PLEASE - if at all possible can you set this trial for a somewhat later date.

REASON: It appears most likely that on August 30 1995 I may still be in Europe returning to the USA on about that time and date.

Thank You

Copy to, Edmund D. Kahn

CV 94-55

RECEIVED JUL 24-95                          SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA

Maricopa county

July 19, 1995                      HON. REBECCA A. ALBRECHT

No: CV 94-05108

MARGARET LOEB, et al   Edmund D. Kahn

v.  

Leonard Van Zanten  Riverside, CA ______________________

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN                         

The court has reviewed the defendant's request to continue the trial.  The court has been advised that Plaintiff does not object.  Based on the matters presented to the court,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the trial currently set for August 30, 1995 for one day to the court.

IT IS ORDERED resetting this matter for trial to the Court on Thursday, January 11, 1996 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS ORDERED: Estimated length of trial: one day.

THIS IS A FIRM TRIAL SETTING. 

1.   No less than five (5) judicial days prior to trial, counsel (or the parties) shall file:       

B.     Any trial memoranda (optional), which will be in lieu of post-trial briefs unless otherwise requested by the Court at the conclusion of the trial.

C.     Motions in lime, which must meet the test of State v. Superior Court, 108 Ariz. 396, 499 p.2d 152 (1972): "The primary purpose of a motion in lime is to avoid disclosing to the jury prejudicial matters which may compel a mistrial."