Civil 5

Civil file 94-05105 Continued

            CV 94-72   To Index

Leonard Van Zanten, Riverside CA.


Margaret Loeb, et all.                     NO CV 94-05108       

Vs                                                   Plaintiffs Responds to motion for summary

Leonard Van Zanten                      Judgment and: motion to re-establish outstanding

Defendant                                       motion for default. _________________________


Comes now defendant respectfully to move this court to INVALIDATE, or otherwise VACATE plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and reestablish - as to finish, complete the action, of - the outstanding MOTION FOR DEFAULT and counter suit for damages.


On March 7 1995 plaintiff and defendant were to appear in this court for trial of this case lawfully set and agreed upon as shown by Exhibit (a).  While therefore the defendant appeared at the court on the time and date set therefore - he was informed that the trial had been dismissed on information to the court.  By the plaintiff, statements and information that was neither true nor accurate - of which plaintiff was very well aware - making the same therefore a case of perjury and fraud before the court.

When therefore the defendant, according to the rules of the court, moved for a MOTION TO DEFAULT AND COUNTERSUIT FOR DAMAGES, (exhibit b), and documents to that effect were placed into evidence in the court (exhibits B, F, G, H, and J), the court, Judge Schafer III, ordered a new trial date to be held on Aug 30 1995 (exhibit C).  And notified both defendant and plaintiff thereof.

When therefore the defendant knew, or surmised that on Aug 30-95 he might not physically be within the continental USA, defendant requested an extension of said date to the court (exhibit D) and notified plaintiff of said request.

Plaintiffs, upon receipt of notice of extension, then set out to bypass, abandon, or generally nullify the defendant lawful action, and court ordered trial, with its consequential effect regarding default, fraud, and general perjury before the court.  By (in the absence of the defendant, and without his knowledge) filing for a motion for summary judgment - failing to make any mention of the foregoing, and outstanding trial - nor its issues.  Nor presenting any defense or evidence by which plaintiffs might be relieved from the charges and issues standing before the court and awaiting trial.

Defendant, upon his return to the USA, found notice (exhibit E) of his request being granted, a new trial date being set for Jan. 11-1996, and it additionally noted that plaintiff had no objection to this new trial date setting.


Accordingly, Defendant submits to the court that;

a). Defendants, motion to declare default, and counter suit for damages - which is on record and on the calendar of the court, has yet to be finalized.  That for as much as the court answered defendants above noted motion by ordering, and setting forth a date of trial, and this trial not as yet having taken place, that this motion is first to be heard and decided upon before any further motion can be entertained.

b). Defendant submits, charges, and affirms that; plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was instigated in order to evade due process of law, to evade the court, and the issues of the case at hand.  That, the motion for summary judgment is in effect a ploy to evade justice, and instigated to that end.

Defendant hereby pleads that plaintiff, in this case action, did in fact default and committed fraud upon the court, wherefore according to the laws and statutes of *: Federal law, and *; the Arizona rules of justice, and *; and in particular pursuant to A.R.C.P. 60 (c (3) (4) (5) (6) and rule 59 (j) that the judgment entered for the plaintiff is void.  And defendant should be granted relief for said cause of misrepresentation; misconduct; default, and fraud upon the court.

Wherefore; defendant prays the court to; Dismiss, vacate, invalidate, or otherwise disqualify plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and, find judgment against the plaintiff for default and fraud upon the court.

Or, Complete upon, and/or restate the previous order of the court for trial on the motion and action of; default; and fraud before and upon the court.


According to common law every man has the right to be heard, and a right to his defense.  This is the very basis on which the constitution was written.  And that if an adverse party commits fraud, harassment, and incurs damages to the other party, that the latter has a right to enter into and be heard by the court in order to find relief.  The following statements then are valid arguments.

1). Defendant filed a motion for relief due to fraud and default upon the court - which has not been answered.  And if it will not be answered - that would in essence be as the court saying: “Others yes, but you have no rights”.

2). Defendant counter suit for damages remains undecided by the court, even though this action was prompted by Judge Schafer III, himself to submit to the court.

3). The irony of; while plaintiff, by the front door of the court was facing charges of fraud and misrepresentation on the court, and of default, in all essence having lost, and forfeited his own case - plaintiff managed to obtain a judgment through the back-door of the court.

4). Defendants action accepted and slated for trial by the court - being unfinished, was again somehow taken off calendar (thrown into the gutter) by the plaintiff.  As once before when on March 7-1995 plaintiff and defendant were to appear before the court, and plaintiff with malice and fraud upon the court managed to have the trial canceled or suspended - leaving the defendant to exercise himself for nothing.

5). I the defendant, not an attorney, but with an un-wavering love for rights and justice submits to the court, that the court ought to do something regarding the attorneys who practice law by circumventing the same, who utilize (misuse) the court and its procedures to in effect cancel the courts orders and procedures.

6). Once the court has heard and in finality acted upon defendants outstanding action against the plaintiff - then; should the verdict be in favor of the plaintiffs, the case be set forward wherein the defendant can and has an obligation to show how

a) The court has once already in a previous hearing under oath declared plaintiff contributory negligent.

b) Once again prove plaintiff contributory negligent.

Dated December 11-1995  Leonard Van Zanten (Defendant)

Copies of the foregoing mailed,

ENCLOSURES.  Redress of motion to declare default, and counter suit for damages.  Exhibit (A) Trial order set for March 7 -1995.  (B) Motion to default and counter suit for damages.  (C) New trial set Aug 30 - 1995.  (D) Request for extension of trial date.  (E) Extended trial date order.  (F) Letter of defendant to plaintiff regarding settlement.  (G) Fax letter of defendant to plaintiff regarding terms of agreement, With confirmation of fax sent and received.  (H) ATT Record showing telephone calls and fax between plaintiff and defendant.  (J) Cost of damages by plaintiff to defendant.  (K) Letter, Recap, and enumeration of failed agreement between plaintiff and defendant.

CV 94-73

Leonard Van Zanten, Riverside Ca.



Margaret Loeb, et all.                             NO:    CV  94-05108

Plaintiffs                                                  REDRESS OF MOTION TO DECLARE

Vs.                                                            DEFAULT AND COUNTERSUIT FOR

Leonard Van Zanten                              DAMAGES

Defendant                                                 _________________________


During the month of February of 1995 plaintiff wrote and spoke to the defendant for a settlement of their case, to which defendant agreed except upon the EXPRESS TERMS that all required papers be signed and processed and be at the court before the trial date of March 7 - 1995.

This was not an admission of guilt on the part of the defendant, but rather as a means to turn the other cheek, to no longer be committed to appear at the court, and have the hassle of defense etc.

Defendant made it therefore very clear to plaintiff that the signed copy of the agreement be in his possession well in time for defendant to send to and place it at the court before the date of March 7 - 1995.  (Exhibit F, K, and D)

Plaintiff however was lax, or generally did not wish to proceed with the agreement, and never to this day, has mailed nor faxed to the defendant a copy of said agreement, and the subsequent affidavit of Becky Villalba, submitted to the court by the plaintiff, is without substance.  Plaintiff does not show, and has not shown evidence to that effect.  The affidavit being a manufacture.

As then it was clearly stipulated to the plaintiff by letter, by fax, and by personal phone calls in the weeks preceding the trial; that if plaintiff did not sign and forward to the defendant the said agreement by no later than Friday the third day of March 1995.  There would be NO AGREEMENT in any case whatsoever.  That instead the trial would be on.

Plaintiff then never did sign the agreement according to our terms, and as such was not in agreement.  And whereas plaintiff states that he did sign and forward said agreement, there is no evidence to the fact.  While ample evidence exist to the contrary.

Fact.  On March 3 1995 Plaintiff knew without doubt or reservation that there was NO agreement, yet on March 6 1995 spoke to the court as if there was, (perjury, fraud)

Fact:   On the trial date, when defendant appeared at the court, the clerk Annette had not received signed copy of agreement.  Which, “IF” she had, would (as the plaintiff was very well aware of), been null and void according to our terms of agreement, this being evidenced by the attached exhibits.

Plaintiffs contention to the contrary are falsehood - as was the first in calling the court the day before the trial to cancel the same - it in all effect being fraud upon the court - evidenced from the attached exhibits.

The attached exhibits (G, F, H, and K) clearly demonstrate the multiple phone conversations and fax messages as to the terms of our agreement which plaintiff did not timely according to our mutual strict agreement acted upon, and as such did not agree to.

Exhibit G: One of the fax messages as a last warning after repeated telephone conversations that led to no result.  With attached print out of fax machine proving that said fax was indeed sent and received by plaintiff, hence, ATT record (exhibit H) confirm the same.

Exhibit F: Letter from defendant to plaintiff repeating once again the terms agreed upon by previous telephone conversations.

Exhibit H: ATT Record of telephone calls made, from and whereto Pages 1 and 2.  And while plaintiff contents that he attempted to call defendant but did not succeed, page 3 of ATT records show the numerous phone calls made by defendant during that period, proving that defendant was available at all times day and night, and that IF INDEED plaintiff had attempted to reach defendant he would most certainly have succeeded.

Exhibit K: Additional letter of defendant to plaintiff showing what had occurred how, why, and when, and recap of our original agreement.

Signed this day December 11-1995 Leonard Van Zanten (defendant)

Copy of foregoing mailed.

CV 94-74

Arthur W Vance, Law offices of Edmund D. Kahn


Margaret Loeb                    NO: CV 94-05108

Plaintiffs                                Reply to defendant's responds To motion for summary

Vs                                           judgment. And to defendants motion to re- establish

Leonard Van Zanten            Defendant outstanding motion for default ____________________

Comes now state farm mutual automobile Insurance Company as the subrogee of Margaret Loeb and respectfully submits a reply to defendants recent pleadings entitled “Responds to motion for summary Judgment and motion to re-establish outstanding motion for default” dated December 11-1995

Response to motion for summary judgment

On June 21 1995 Plaintiff filed their motion for summary judgment and mailed the same to defendant at his address of record.

Defendant having filed no opposition, the court granted summary judgment on September 6, 1995.

Defendant filed a document dated September 18-1995 denying that he had been served with the motion for summary judgment.

Defendant filed a motion to set aside judgment dated October 4 1995, again denying service on him of the motio0n for summary judgment

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to set aside judgment on October 12 1995

Defendant filed a rebuttal to plaintiff opposition in which he set out a section entitled “Metorious defense” wherein he stated, “If only given the opportunity, a reasonable time span in which to prepare and place into evidence all such facts and matters.

On November 17 1995 the court ordered plaintiff to forward copies of our motion to defendant, return receipt requested, which we had already done on September 25 1995


Defendant has filed a response to our motion for summary judgment in which he fails to set out any facts or citations of law which convert the allegations set out in the motion for summary judgment

Motion to re-establish outstanding motion for default

Previously this matter was set for trial on March 7 1995.  Prior to the trial date, plaintiff believed they had settled this matter and transmitted a copy of the settlement agreement executed by defendant to the court on February 27 1995

Claiming some failure on plaintiff part to communicate with defendant, defendant appeared for trial on March 7 1995 and later filed a petition to declare default and counter suit for damages, dated March 13 1995

Plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant's petition and counter suit dated March 22 1995

On April 12 1995 the court made ordered the filing of the settlement agreement and defendants petition and counter suit for damages and set the whole matter for trial on Aug 30 1995, (Later continued to Jan 11-1995.


Evidently defendants current motion to re-establish outstanding motion for default is an effort to collect sanctions for plaintiffs failure to appear at trial on March 7 1995

Plaintiff contend that this matter was decided by implication in Judge Schafers order dated April 12 1995 in which no such sanctions were awarded.  If the court desires to entertain this claim for sanctions at this time, plaintiff will submit the matter without hearing

Wherefore plaintiff prays for an order of the court granting their motion for summary judgment and denying defendants motion for sanctions or default.

Respectfully submitted on December 28-1995

(Signed By Arthur W. Vance)


{( LEONARD.  (Commenting) )}

O how correct I was when I stated that the attorneys of men have no conception nor any feeling of and for justice, how that word is not in their dictionaries.

Wherefore then they will certainly lie down in torment, for I will not forget their incompetence, nor their rude behavior for law and justice.  This they will have of me as they will have of the Almighty Lord who has given me the rod to rule the whole multitude of the Gentile nations I will certainly reward them for their lack of integrity, and they will be humiliated and shamed, and gnash their teeth at me and at my Lord my King.

Moreover, this fellow continues to call me a liar, yes, calling me a liar mind you, as if I were born of the same womb of which he was born.  This I assure you fellow, this will not remain unpunished.  No man shall go forth and call his Creator a liar, but upon the cost of his life.  And no man shall go forth and call the sons of God as liars, but upon the cost of their lives.

You foolish persons, O how ignorant you are, in not realizing how in calling me to lie, you are in fact pronouncing your own death sentence.  And you will come to know it, but when you do, it will be too late to turn back, too late for remorse, too late to avoid the death, which you so ignorantly invited to yourself.

For know this all you lawyers and all you judges and you princes of the earth, I will not be called a liar by any of you but upon the cost of your own head.

Take therefore learning from this you whom are yet to be judges, and who desire to rule the people, and who crave to practice law, take learning, accept wisdom, be wise, or it will go with you as it will go with all those that went before you.

Yea in fact hear this; For if you will not take learning from the past, from the acts of those before you in the writings of the wise left unto you, you shall yet be more miserable than them.   Because you knew, you had the record, but ignored it.


CV 94-75



January 12.  1996

No: CV 94 - 05108                                    Hon. Rebecca A Albrecht

Margaret Loeb, et al.,                                Filed  1-18-96


Leonard Van Zanten                                  ________________________

The Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint has been under advisement.  The court has reviewed the motion and the response.  The court has further reviewed the legal file.  Based on the matters presented to the court, the court finds that the defendant’s response to the motion of summary judgment does not establish an issue of fact upon which the court can find that the jury would be entitled to make a decision.

It is ordered granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  The court has reviewed the defendant’s motion to reestablish outstanding motion for default.  The court has further reviewed the legal file.  It appears that the motion for default is based upon the counterclaim for damages filed by the defendant.

The file does not show an answer to the counterclaim by the plaintiff.

The court declines to enter further rulings with regard to the motion to default or default.  The defendant must proceed in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.

CV 95-76


C/O. Ridnour.  Swenson.  Cleere.  & Evans.  P.C.

REF: case file CV 94-05108 Superior Court Phoenix.  January 25 - 1996

Dear Michael.

            I wish yet again to thank you for the help you gave me previously, and perhaps I might impose upon you once more for a little legal advise.  (The attorneys here cannot help me since they are not licensed for Arizona.) 

To fill you in.  I cited rule 60 of the A.R.C.P, and the judgment was set aside.  Then in reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment, I requested of the court to re-establish (my previous) the outstanding motion for default and counter-suit for damages.  The letter dated Jan 12-96 of the court (herewith attached) is in reply thereto.

It seems to be my contention at this time that the time for requests to the court is over with, and instead the time has come to insist upon the court, and rephrase my requests into demands upon the court.

The basis is: On March 7, 1995, plaintiff clearly defaulted along with committing perjury and fraud upon the court, (evidence introduced to the court, while plaintiff provided no case to the contrary)

Where then the judge says (letter) “Defendants response to M.F.S.J, does not establish an issue of facts upon which the court can find that the jury could make a decision", On the contrary I would have no problem whatsoever convincing any jury of plaintiff’s guilt towards default and fraud.  While on the other hand, since the M.F.S.J, deals only with the issue of the collision, I did not, and should not answer nor debate the case along that line, since in fact that line is no longer relevant, and should I pursue it thus way - (in my judgment) I would in fact be defeating my own case.

My case being; that the court on two separate occasions by an oath has already pronounced plaintiff guilty (to say contributory negligent) and that plaintiff is also guilty of fraud upon the court, and of default.

And that therefore the court has no choice, and I may insist upon it, that it pronounce sentence accordingly

It is now clear from this last letter, that although once the court gave me a day in court upon my motion for default - now it has become a kangaroo court to hear nothing of it, and instead humor the plaintiff, who while he was up for fraud and for default charges before the court - managed to circumvent the whole issue as if nothing of the kind had happen.

What therefore Michael, if you can tell me, is the law, or the rule in this court in the way of canceling trial hearings?  Can anyone do this at will without any substance provided to the court?  Can a plaintiff who instigated the case cancel a hearing mere hours before its time without any regard to the defendant, who will therefore come for nothing, and afterwards that same plaintiff can again pursue the defendant?  For this seems very immoral and illegal.

By implication, according to the judges of this Superior court, a defendant who owes could cancel his trial mere hours before due - and let his accuser come for nothing - not even gaining a judgment by default, since the hearing was canceled.

Hence can you advise me on what this entails where it states in the letter on the last line:  “The defendant must proceed in accordance with the rules of civil procedure".

My second contention before the court, which is a valid one, is; Since - the court made me swear by an oath before the Almighty God, and upon His law that I should not violate His law - it is only common sense and equally of force that the court itself abide by the same law.  - - - Wherefore since the law of God is that if anyone gives a word and then does not keep it - it shall be a theft.  And the plaintiff having affirmed that indeed she did give her word, - - - the court in all reality and by their own legal terms did in fact pronounce the plaintiff guilty (contributory negligent)

And although I made both judges on both occasions aware of that fact, they elected to be reckless and hypocritical, and pronounce sentence according to an altogether different law, a law (as they call it) of their own making, not consistent with the oath they made me swear.

My point here is; The courts have no calling, and no legal right to act in that manner, since in doing so they are in violation not only of the US Constitution guaranteeing the rights of the individual, but equally as much in violation of their own laws and dictation.  For if they wish to judge me according to their own laws and scorn the law of God, they should have made me swear by their own law, and not the law of God.

Since however in their own ignorance they made me swear by God’s law - I most certainly will hold them to that very oath of their own making  - at all cost.  I will not suffer this hypocrisy, but correct them, and if they will not be corrected I will reward it upon them.

This is no empty promise, but I do not as yet wish to reveal my true self, but I will see what is in the mind of man, and let them take their course before they come to know me.

If then I may impose upon you Michael, can you tell me; what is the procedure in the laws of these courts to place an action against the court and its judges in a higher court?  Should it be the Federal court or what?  I am more than well versed in the law and in truth, as well as being foremost in the fundamentals of all sciences, but I am somewhat at a loss when it comes to the rules of the courts in their procedures.

PS Michael: I am not expecting something for free.  Send me a bill for this service will you.

Awaiting your reply,

 Yours truly.  Leonard Van Zanten.




CV 94-77


Phoenix AZ.  January 27-1996

Leonard Van Zanten

Re: CV 94-05108 Maricopa County Sup Ct. Loeb Vs Van Zanten

Dear Mr. Van Zanten:

 Regarding your letter of January 25, 1996, I cannot answer your questions because I am not your attorney and do not understand the questions posed in your letter in any event.  The last sentence of the court’s order appears to me to be the judge’s way of dropping a hint to you that you need the assistance of an attorney.  However I am not able or willing to be your attorney at this time due to many other time commitments.  Take care

Very truly yours.  Michael J. Frazelle  For the firm.  

CV 94-78

Leonard Van Zanten



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

Vs                                                          REPLY TO “MOTION FOR

Leonard Van Zanten.                            SUMMARY JUDGMENT                                                      

Defendant ________________________________________________


Hon. William J. Schafer, III, Hon. Rebecca A. Albrecht

COMES now defendant in responds to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to inform and insist upon the court that; said motion of plaintiffs is not viable since on previous occasions the court pronounced plaintiffs guilty, to wit; contributory negligent.

It is therefore the position of the defendant to at this time “insist” upon the court to abide by the verdict which the court - under oath by its own initiative formulated.


On January 13, 1994, in the Municipal court, before Judge Green (Taped transcript exhibit 3 - on file), and, on November 3, 1994, in the Superior Court, before Thomas A. McCarthy (Written transcript exhibit 1, p1-1, 4), the court caused defendant, as also the plaintiffs, to swear an oath by the law of the Almighty Judge.

When therefore the court enforces it upon its subjects to swear by a certain law, to bind them (at the penalty of death and of perjury) to that certain law - it then is only correct and judicial; that the court, enforcing the oath, abide by the same law, and not in turn-about judge its subjects by another law, a law not in keeping with the oath.

 As then the plaintiffs and/or defendants, in violation of the oath, are in contempt of court, and subject to the penalties thereof, so also the court - as the presiding Judge - whence in violation of the oath - shall be in contempt of the court, and likewise be subject to the penalties thereof.  Since again, it is judicially correct that he who takes an oath of a participant is himself foremost subject to the same.

Should the court, in its wisdom, feel that it is not obligated to the same oath, how then may we ask; will it legally take the oath, or lawfully enforce its violation thereof upon its participants?

Will one teach and not practice what he teaches?  Will the court bind me, the defendant by an oath, but himself scorn and mock the oath to abandon its precept for an altogether strange and corrupt version - not entitled to law?


The law then upon which the court caused defendant and plaintiff to swear unmistakably states:  “That whenever one person gives an another person a word, a promise, and then does not keep it - it shall be a theft".  (Almighty God, Ref. Exhibit 2, p1-7; Baruch 5) or again; “Let your yea be yea, your nay be nay, anything beyond shall be of evil".  (Jesus, Gospel)


Plaintiff, during the trial, in person, and as recorded on the taped transcript (exhibit 3) and as recorded in defendant’s  “Statements of defense exhibit 2, p4) confirm that plaintiff indeed had made a promise to the defendant not to proceed into his direction upon the roadway.  But then did not adhere to her promise even though she was duly warned by her son seated next to her, that the diversion of her intention may not be understood by the defendant, and possibly come to detrimental consequences, as it did, for which accordingly plaintiff was wholly responsible by and through neglect.


Plaintiff therefore having breached her word, accordingly, the court pronounced plaintiff’s negligent, as she who is guilty of theft in as much as causing damage to defendant’s property.  The same being lawfully seated in and by the law, under oath, which the court, in its own design, and by its own free will, so exacted of the participants.

And aside of these sufficient sentiments, defendant hereby re-introduces as evidence the arguments as once set forth in  “Defendants statements of defense exhibit 2) that on their own by common law bear guilt to plaintiff.


If the court desired to judge this defendant, or any of its subjects so coming before the court, by a law of its own making, and not by the law of Almighty God, the court should not then have enforced it upon its subject to swear by God, but rather by its own law which evidently proved to be in opposition, in violation of the law of Almighty God.  Or, the judges in the above noted cases were simply acting recklessly according to the judicial endeavors of the court.

In plain English: If the court wishes to uphold and grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, - it, the court shall be in violation of its own oath, and be in violation of the precepts of the US Constitution protecting the judicial rights of the individual - for which the court, shall be answerable both before God, and before the higher court of the land.


Furthermore, the court made an error in; to upon request of the plaintiff, having once canceled the trial hearing of March 7 1995, and letting defendant come to the trial for nothing, to afterwards allow plaintiff again to come back at the defendant.

 It is reasonable to assume that the party which instigated the suit, has the option, (within certain judicial limits), to cancel the same.  Since on the other hand it is not reasonable but judicially inappropriate for a defendant, which did not instigate the suit, to call in mere hours before the trial and have it canceled, except of course by presenting concurrent evidence to the court.

As therefore the plaintiff’s on March 6, -1995, caused the trial of March 7, -1995 to be canceled, all the while not informing the defendant thereof, and the court accordingly canceled said hearing, it should also have ended the case, since the party that brought the suit canceled the same.

 Plaintiff’s then contended that their cancellation was by belief, or mis-belief.  If therefore this was truly the case, an apology, and a remuneration to the defendant should be in order for the plaintiff’s.  This however was not the case unto which defendant brought evidence, and furnished the same to the court, showing how plaintiff’s actions were false, and in all respect conversant as misrepresentation before the court.

The action of the court should accordingly have been to either grant defendant the case by default on the part of the plaintiff.  Or, for as much as the instigator (plaintiff) stopped the process, canceling the same through improper conduct, violating moral, judicial, and legal procedures, the court should have no option but to view plaintiff's action as final in the cancellation thereof.

In which case it is absurd, immoral, unlawful, and in direct violation of judicial precepts, that thereafter the court should again allow the plaintiff’s to come again for a second time against the defendant on the same issue.


The status of the defendant at this time is; to insist upon the court to act with justice according to its own solemn oath by which it (the court) adversely, or inadvertently pronounced plaintiff negligent.  And since defendant at his option forgave plaintiff the damages done to defendant, plaintiff negligence may accordingly be construed as contributory negligence.

This defendant wishes to remind the court that in the event the court refuses to act according to the law inferred upon it by its own oath, this defendant will be left with no alternative but to act with punitive measures against the court and its judges in assessing the reprove and judgments of the higher courts.

Dated February 5, - 19 Leonard Van Zanten.  Defendant,



CV 94-79

Leonard Van Zanten



Margaret Loeb, et al,                           NO.   CV 94-05108


Vs.                                                          LETTER TO THE COURT

Leonard Van Zanten                              

Defendant                                              __________________________


Hon. Rebecca A. Albrecht.  Hon. William J. Schafer, III

Received your letter dated Jan 12 1996.  From which it is obvious that the court has mis-comprehended the facts and the issues of this case.

 The court claims that defendant’s response to the motion for summary judgment did not establish an issue of facts.         .  Fact of the matter is "plaintiffs" motion in effect is a blank paper.  - It does not contain nor establish a relevant issue for which the trial of Aug 30, 1995, extended to Jan 11-1996, was set and ordered.

The issue of the trial that was set for the above dates, was not as to whom might have been negligent or not so by which the accident (that led to this case) came to occur.  Since that issue had previously been resolved on two separate occasions by the court, in which Plaintiff was acclaimed negligent, and/or contributory negligent (ref: “Responds to motion for summary judgment.” herewith)

The true issue of the trial ordered for Aug 30-95 and subsequent Jan 11-96 was for charges against plaintiffs, to wit, perjury, misrepresentation, and default before the court, along with a minor counterclaim of defendant.  Since therefore plaintiff’s “Motion for summary judgment” did not contain any facts, nor any mention of the issue of the trial,

Defendant however, in responds to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, on the trial for which it was filed, provide the court with sufficient facts and evidence relevant to the issue thereof upon which the court or any jury would be entitled to make an decision.

It is therefore that defendant at this time insist upon the court to re-evaluate the facts in this matter, and to render a ruling according to the facts as outlined here and in the accompanying “Responds to “Motion for summary judgment.”

Secondly:  It is erroneous for the court to suggest or state in its letter that defendant’s motion for default appears to be based on the minor counterclaim that accompanied it.  

Here an unscrupulous person is using the court to rob an innocent person of some $ 9,000.00, against which the innocent party is making its defense, does the court than think that defendant’s design is for a mere  $ 500.00 counter claim?  Contrary to some, this defendant does not have the love of money, in my esteem the monetary part is of no consequence one way or the other, how then should I care for the minor part which - if and when it were awarded me, I would not then accept.

Yet I will fight for it, but for the sake of truth, and for justice, and for the well being of the court and its judges, and everyone.  For if justice will indeed succeed it will be for the good to the court and those serving within it.  And should it not succeed, let not anyone wish to be in their shoes for the succeeding wrath will not be a pretty picture upon them.

O you poor ones, when will you come to understand that I am fighting for your good, for your welfare even at the cost of my own life.  For my life you can have, but justice shall not proceed from you if you do not at this time-let justice proceed from you.  I love truth, and justice, and righteousness, for these I will raise my hand.  I hate the lie, and despise injustice, nor will I condone either.  And do you than think that I should associate myself with the lie, or practice conceit?

Have you so little regard for God and His sons, which He sends among you to reprove you - that you think them to be false, or lovers of money?  The priests at large yes, who preach only for their belly, because they are not of God but sons of the devil, whom, contrary as you might think, will not escape their reward, but will lie down in torment, as also you the judges and counselors of the court will - if you do not heed this wisdom.

I say this to you and this also; you shall be wrong if you think to be dealing with only a man, a son of the earth.  For I was not born of the earth and neither shall I descend in it.  I speak what I am commanded to speak by Him who is Judge of all.  Whatsoever the Almighty Judge gives into my mouth that is what you hear, whether it is to your likens or not to your likens, for in the end the harm is only to yourselves, even as the good would be for yourselves.

I have been patient and forbearing for a long while, so speaks He who opens my mouth, but the time grows near that I will be patient no longer, neither will I forebear, but I will begin to reward those which plant thorns in the earth and harvest abuse, who flay the skin from off My little ones, and who rob the poor for sake of the rich.  Nor will I suffer them any longer that pronounce injustice by which violence and adultery is increased in the earth

Take heed O you judges and you counselors at my word, for why should your bodies become as dung upon the earth?  Do not the dead receive a burial?  The day however is no longer as before.  If you will not pay heed and seek Him that is foremost to be sought you will not be awarded a burial O you judges and you counselors.  Neither you nor your loved ones, but your hands will be one against the other, each one killings it's loved ones.  And you will be as dung upon the face of the earth with none to bury you, nor to weep over you.

And this will only be the beginning of your shame, for then you will be astonished, and recall the words I spoke to you, and you will gnash your teeth in agony and regret.  Then you will lie down in torment, and receive a second death, the death of your soul, and many days will pass upon you. 

Then the word of the Almighty Judge where He said, “As for Me, their lives are annihilated, I will no longer have mercy on them,” will be of force, and you will be given into my hands to do with you as I please.  And I will do with you as I pronounced I would, at which time my word will be law, and my every wish will be accomplished into forever and ever.

Is it not general practice before the court to let the accused know “what” their reward at the hand of justice will entail?  Even so I have done my duty, I have given you to know what will be in your day of tomorrow at the hand of Justice.  If therefore at end you do not wish to become subject to me, hear my voice, and hear it well - so you may be free of me.  

Dated February 5, 1996 Leonard Van Zanten.

CV 94-80


Maricopa County

April 2-1996 The honorable Rebecca A. Albrecht

Clerk of the Court CV 94-05108 Filed 4-4-96

Margaret Loeb et al., v. Leonard Van Zanten


Leonard Van Zanten Riverside Ca.

 IT IS ORDERED approving and settling formal written judgment re: complaint signed by the court March 27, 1996 and filed herein.  

CIVIL FILE 97-1786

CV 97-1

Leonard Van Zanten



Leonard Van Zanten



Superior Court of the state of Arizona, Maricopa county,

Judge William J. Schafer III                                                               COMPLAINT

Judge  Rebecca A. Albrecht

Arthur W. Vance, (law office Edmund D. Kahn.  Et,

Thomas A. Mc.Carthy  


COMES now Plaintiff LEONARD VAN ZANTEN before this Honorable Court, and before God, the Almighty Judge, and before all men - charging defendants et, al, collectively and individually with judicial abuse, with perjury, with fraud, and with cover up of fraud.  With recklessness and hypocrisy on the part of the court and the judges.  With careless violation of constitutional rights, and of state, and moral, and common law and rights of the individual, as stated in rule 60 of the Federal, and state statutory, and of the US Constitution.

Charges - Individually

Superior court of the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa, Phoenix AZ.  With reckless disregard of Constitutional rights, Moral laws, and Common laws and rights pertaining to the individual.  With condoning perjury and fraud and with covering up of the same.  In general with lawless behavior, with injury, with robbery, with malice, with hypocrisy, with contempt of the law, and with misuse of the name of God.

Judge William Schafer III: - With violation of plaintiff’s judicial right's to be tried and judged according to the law by which he was made to swear in and before the court.  With reckless disregard of Constitutional rights, Moral laws and Common laws and rights pertaining to the individual in and before a court.  With injury and harm, inclusive robbery to the plaintiff - by condoning perjury and fraud before the court and by covering up of the same.  And with malice in regard to charge plaintiff not to make a defense for himself.

Judge Rebecca A. Albrecht: - With violation of plaintiff’s judicial right's to be tried and judged according to the law by which he was made to swear in and before the court.  With reckless disregard of Constitutional rights, Moral laws, and Common laws and rights pertaining to the individual in and before a court.  With injury and harm, inclusive robbery, to the plaintiff- by condoning perjury and fraud before the court and by covering up of the same.

Thomas A. Mc.Carthy.  With violation of plaintiff judicial right's to be tried and judged according to the law by which the law by which he was made to swear in and before the court made him to swear in and before the court.  With reckless disregard of Constitutional rights, Moral laws, and Common laws and rights pertaining to the individual in and before a court.  With injury and harm, inclusive robbery, to the plaintiff.

Arthur W Vance With reckless disregard of Constitutional rights, Moral laws, and Common laws and rights pertaining to the individual in and before a court.  With injury and harm, inclusive robbery, to the plaintiff through perjury and fraud before the court.

CV 97-2

Leonard Van Zanten



Leonard Van Zanten


Vs;                                                                                                 COMPLAINT,

The Superior Court of the state of Arizona         CHARGES,  

Thomas A. Mc.Carthy                                             CONTINUED

Judge William J. Schafer III  

Judge  Rebecca A. Albrecht

Arthur W. Vance, (law office Edmund D. Kahn.  Et,  


Comes now Plaintiff Leonard Van Zanten, before this honorable Court and before God and all men enumerating the following complaint, charges, and the exposition thereof.

ISSUE - A (Violation of the oath)

1.       Complaint:

Thomas A. Mc Carthy.  When  on  November 2 -1994 I came in vain to the office of Thomas A Mc.Carthy, this Arbitrator among other things caused me to swear an oath by the Almighty God.   Yet though we were under oath, the Court’s Arbitrator himself showed gross contempt and disregard for the Oath or its precepts even though the same was clearly quoted and reiterated before him.  Accordingly, the Court’s arbitrator violated the very essence and ethics of the court in being true to itself and its word.  [Evidence Exhibit E, F, G, I, J]

2.       Charges:

Wherefore; I the Plaintiff hereby charge the Court’s Arbitrator, Thomas A. Mc.Carthy, with hypocrisy and with contempt and blasphemy of the Name of God the Almighty Judge.  With hypocrisy and contempt of the Court (Superior Court of the State of Arizona), and of its procedure and its oath, and the law and precepts which are contained therein, making a mockery of the very essence of the Court and its ethics.  With violating the Court statutes by taking a false oath, and by judging contrary and in opposition to the law of the court in its own oath, which as such is the very essence of the Court and its ethics, as also previously recorded and detailed in exhibits E, F , I


In the exponent; if I am to be judged by the hypocrisy and insanity of men, why then did they not cause me to swear by their own so called law that calls for men to lie and cheat and be a hypocrite - rather than causing me to swear by the law of God which is of truth and of integrity.  For then, in the very presence of the Truth I also expect to be judged in the same ethics and by the same law.


The Superior Court.

Judge William Schafer III,

Judge Rebecca Albrecht

As previously stated [exhibit A, B, E, F, G, I, L] The Court on several occasions took an Oath, to abide by the oath of the law of justice of the Almighty Judge by who’s Name the oath was taken, and that under penalties of Perjury.  And Judge William Schafer, as also Judge Rebecca Albrecht, were duly aware thereof, it being in the record.  Hence, the same was expounded to them [Exhibits A, B, F, G, I, L, O, V, AA, AB, AC] Yet they chose to ignore and violate the solemn oath, and the ethics and the precepts of the law and of the court, making a mockery of the Court and its whole judicial system.

And taking the Name of the Most High Judge in vain, they laughed at the Most High God, and mocked His precept.  Accordingly they showed themselves detestable, most irresponsible and degrading, as creatures devoid of knowledge, with no regard for judicial sanctity.

5.  CHARGES:  

I therefore, in the Name of the Almighty Judge - appeal to this higher Federal Court, to impose upon and charge the Superior Court of the state of Arizona, and its named judges that they reverse, cancel, or otherwise nullify the judgment exhibit AE, and AF, and abide by the oath taken, in which case the plaintiff in the case is pronounced guilty as in guilty of theft to the defendant in the case.

6.   And should the court (judges) not wish to do so, and ignore the very cause of justice, behold, let it be known before God and all men; that in the Name of Him who anointed me I will surely requite them their insolence and injustice to their faces with pain and with regret upon their souls for all time to come, upon this court, and upon every court in this nation, and of every other nation and its judges and counselors one in all.  And not one of them shall ever judge again, or hold any position of importance into eternity.  And if any be found not in league with these but to serves the cause of justice, them will I show mercy.


For I will not condone the mockery of the Name of my Father by whom they continually swear falsely, making sport of His name, holding the Most High Judge in contempt.  Nor will I condone the falsehood of their oath, which they practice in their courts.  Listen therefore you judges: If you will judge men by a law of your own ignorance, then have them also swear (take an oath) by your law of ignorance, and not in contempt, and hypocrisy, as also blasphemously take an oath in the name of my Father the Almighty God.  But if you will swear by the Almighty God, and take an oath of men by His Name, you had better abide by His law, and His precepts or you will suffer grievously, even by my hand as I in the power of the Almighty God swore to you.



On March 7 1995, we had a date in court.  [Exhibit M]  My opponent, the plaintiff in the case however defaulted on that day with perjury and fraud before the court.  Since then Judge Schafer III failed to render judgment to the defendant in the case on the basis of the default, and this same defendant in the case filed additional charges of perjury and fraud before the court against the plaintiff in the case, a new hearing date was placed for Aug 30 1995 [Exhibit P] which in turn was extended to Jan 11 1996 [Exhibit R].  .  Meanwhile, the plaintiff in the case, in order to evade the trial date and its consequent charges of fraud and perjury, - with the sanction of the court - utilized (so as to say) the back door of the court in manufacturing a judgment against the defendant in the case, which proceeded without knowledge or notice given thereof to the defendant in the case.


WHY then - with the sanction of the court - was I cheated out of my day in court?  And, were my charges of fraud and perjury against my opponent ignored?  And WHY did the court (its judges William Schafer II and Rebecca Albrecht) participate and sanction these fraudulent actions, and proceeded to cover up the fraud that had been committed before the court, siding altogether with the plaintiff in the case as if justice were of no account.  And to go as far as to order the defendant in the case not to make a defense for himself in these charges.  [Exhibit Z]

10. Constitutional law, (Amend XIV)) clearly states that not anyone shall deprive any person of life liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  Ditto; Universal law (art 6 & 7) and what person shall be ignorant of the laws regarding fraud and hypocrisy, or the violation of oaths be it in or out of the court?  Certainly not judges!

11. Yet why then, with this knowledge inbred in man did the court rob me of my day in court, in some underhanded way abandoning my cause?  Moreover is it not a very corrupt sense of justice when time and again judgment is pronounced against a man when the judges do not bother to even look at a man’s defense wherein the law and the circumstances are clearly defined?

12.   While I had expected to receive a day in court, and on three occasions a court date was set, time and again in gross violation of the precepts of the US Constitution which guarantees a man his day in court, I was denied my day in court.  And while I had charges of fraud and perjury against my opponent, and a date for trial had been set.  The judges (William Schafer III, and Rebecca A. Albrecht) allowed my opponents to manufacture a conviction against me through the backdoor of the court.

13. Query: 

Is it then common for the courts to ransack a man through the backdoor?  If this be the case, then let here and now in all the courts of the land the front door, its main entrance be closed in with bricks, and sealed off from all the public, so men may clearly see that injustice rules the court.

14.  Did I not have a trial pending on Jan 11 1996?  A trial chiefly against my opponent for fraud and default?  Yet without informing me they took a round about way, as through the back door of the court bypassing the very trial that would have put their head on the chopping block.  And with the sanction of the court and its judges so manufactured a judgment against me, depriving me of my day in court and of all my rightful charges against them,

15. Since then these charges included fraud before the court, and misrepresentation with all the evidence being placed before the court, what sort of justice is it of the court to throw out these things, or to refuse to hear them while they were duly presented according to the format of the court?  This indeed convicts the court and its named judges of fraud and gross injustice, and are so hereby charged before God and all men.  And by what law, or rule of the court is it for a judge (William Schafer III, Rebecca A. Albrecht) to charge a man not to make a defense for himself, [Exhibit Z] not to bring any charges against the person of my opponent, when the same had not only defaulted, (according to law and court procedure - losing his case) but was under charges of fraud and misrepresentation before the court?

16.  By in all it warrants me to state the reality of it all, to which anyone with eyes will concur.  That it simply is not done where a colleague (counselor) is let under by a small man who represents himself.  Or to state it simply and undeniably; “There is no justice for the poor, and; that by-in-large the Court honors criminals while it buries the victims.

17.  Accordingly, it is publicly made clear that the common man who and because he is not financially able to afford an attorney, is instantly at a loss.  His wishes are heard but not considered, and his rightful claims and charges are simply dismissed, because to the judges (perhaps not all but too many nonetheless) he is no more than one of those pests who can’t afford an attorney.  And we at the court, (so the Judge’s thoughts) we are not about to let an attorney bite the dust for one of his kind, we the judges are not about to accept charges of fraud from a mere peasant against one of our own colleague, If on the other hand he was rich enough to employ another attorney, then we would consider the case for the sake of his attorney.

18.  This all boils down to; that in these American courts it is no different today as it was in the medieval times, where only the rich found justice, with the poor none, for which very reason many escaped to these United States.  In still other words; the courts in this nation turn only for the dollar bill, and justice will be executed only according to the amount thereof.

19. Yet though this may be so; I Leonard, I swear to you the courts, and to all the people, you have not on this occasion made a charge against a mere peasant, nor against one of your own kind, but you have brought a charge against the Almighty Lord - in bringing it against one of His own.  You do not know me, though you should have known me, and what more shall I say to reveal myself?

20.  Suppose you did this evil thing against your President Clinton, would not the people of the land cry for outrage against you?  Or would you even dare?  Hear then O you judges and you counselors, for one greater than your President is before you, one of whom it is said, “he will trample upon rulers as a potter treads clay."  Shall he then fear for you judges who trample upon justice, and who have become judges of the law rather than for the law?

21. This you will have of me O you judges who pervert justice, as I swore to you, I will appoint you as servants, and servants of servants, so you may never judge again, nor hold any position of importance - because being judges you abhorred the cause of justice.  And because you oppressed my people, the multitude to my score.  Therefore also when in my anger against you I, by the Almighty God swore to reward you, I applied it to all judges of all nations so that not one of these who abhorred justice might escape, for as my Lord instilled within me - I do not have the respect of persons, but I will deal with everyone according to their works and to the words of their mouth.

Arthur W. Vance c/o Law Office Edmund D Kahn

On March 7 1995 the defendant in the case appearing in court, the plaintiff in the case defaulted by not appearing on the scheduled date and time.  Additionally, the above named plaintiff in the case in the day preceding March 7 1996 acted with fraud and misrepresentation before the court, making the court believe as If there were a settlement, when the same plaintiff in the case knew very well that such was not the case, but rather the contrary, because of which fraud the date and time in court were canceled without any knowledge to the defendant in the case.  Nor did Judge Shafer III have any cause to cancel said date and time without first obtaining evidence to the same.

 I therefore hereby charge Arthur W. Vance, law office of Edmund D. Kahn, with perjury and fraud before the court, and with default.  And Judge Shafer III with sanctioning said fraud and perjury, and by covering up of the same.  The evidence of which is contained in exhibits L, N, N1, N2, N3, and O.


If we examine Exhibits A, and B, the words written therein, which followed upon a host of previous arguments, we, or I will come to say:  “How much more clear can I be, or put it so that men may understand?”  No, we, nor I have not been unclear.  The sentiments clearly define the aspects of wisdom, and why then did these Judges not comprehend the wisdom of these words?  Shall we then again begin to question these things or not rather make a conclusion, which can only be that either the Court by these named persons is blind and/or devoid of knowledge, in which case they should never have been appointed judges.

Or, it is a case of malice, a case of these being corrupt and acting with malice and with disregard for the plight of men, having in their inner being no regard for justice, nor any respect for the Most High Judge by whose appointment (in the highest instance) they have their seating.

Accordingly, their wickedness now comes to try and test the integrity of the higher judges in the land - if these will act with justice, or if they be like unto the former.  And if none shall be found - weep then for the Courts and for all its judges and counselors, for their torment shall have no end.

Copies of the foregoing mailed on this day _____________________to

Arthur W. Vance.  C/o  Law office Edmund D. Kahn.

The Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County

Judge William Shafer III

Judge Rebecca A. Albrecht.

C/o Superior Court  Phoenix AZ.

Thomas A. Mc Carthy.

CV 97-3

Leonard Van Zanten



Leonard Van Zanten


Vs;                                                                      CASE HISTORY EXHIBITS

The Superior Court of the state of 

Arizona, Maricopa county

Thomas A. Mc.Carthy  

Judge William J. Schafer III

Judge  Rebecca A. Albrecht

Arthur W. Vance, (law office Edmund D. Kahn. Et,



(Defendant in the case > is > Mr. Van Zanten

Plaintiff in the case       > is > Margaret Loeb, State Farm Insurance Co., Arthur W Vance,

The Case                        > is  > CV94-05108 In the Superior Court, Maricopa County, Arizona.

1.       On November 16 1993 there was an Accident at Colter and 12th Street, in the city of Phoenix Arizona.  The vehicle of Margaret and Samuel Loeb collided with the vehicle being driven by Leonard Van Zanten.

2.       On January 13 1994 the plaintiff  (defendant in the case) appeared at the Phoenix Municipal; court before Judge Green on an alleged violation of the civil traffic code.  Plaintiff was sworn in, the case heard, and the law recited.  Notwithstanding all this Judge Green violated his oath and the law of the court.  [Exhibit X, taped transcript]

3.      On February 1 - 1994 Notice of receipt of civil traffic appeal  was recorded      [Exhibit C]

4.       On May 18 -1994  plaintiff in the case (CV94-05108) filed suit in request for admissions [Exhibit D]

5.       On  June 22 -1994 Defendant in the case  made his “Counterclaim”[Exhibit E] and “Statements of defense” [Exhibit F] and “Disclosure” [Exhibit G]

6.       On September 22 -1994 notice was recorded for arbitration having been set before Thomas A, Mc.Carthy.  Jr.  [Exhibit H]

7.       On  Nov 2 -1994  the hearing of arbitration was held, and transcript made by and for the defendant in the case [Exhibit I]

8.       On Dec 7 -1994  the Arbitrator Thomas A Mc. Carthy Jr. signed and recorded  arbitration award [Exhibit J]

9.       On  Jan 19 -1995 Defendant in the case filed for “Appeal from Arbitration and Motion to set for trial” [Exhibit K] together with “Statements of Complaint”  [Exhibit L]

10.   On February 8 -1995  the “Appeal from arbitration and motion to set for trial,”  was ordered for trial date March 7 -1995 at 10.00 AM, in the Superior Court, State of Arizona, County of Maricopa [Exhibit M]

11.   On March 7 -1995, Defendant in the case appearing at the court as ordered, found plaintiff in the case to (a) Have defaulted by not appearing.  And (b) Made himself guilty of perjury and fraud before the court - in having - the said trial suspended upon false indication to the court.  (fraud and perjury - since plaintiff was very much aware that said indication was an outright lie and deceit) (Ref.; item 12)

12.   On March 13 -1995 Defendant in the case  Filed “Petition to declare Default, and Counter-suit for damages,”  [Exhibit N]  Along with  documents of evidence  [Exhibits N1, N2, N3, N4, N5]

13.   On April 3 -1995 Plaintiffs in the case filed their “Opposition to declare default and counter-suit for damages [Exhibit O]

14.   On April 12 -1995 the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County  recorded notice of new trial set for August 30 -1995 10 AM  [Exhibit P]

15.   Upon request from defendant in the case, letter dated June 10 -1995 [Exhibit Q]  A  new trial date was ordered by the court for January 11-1996 [Exhibit R]

16.   On September 16 - 1995, Defendant in the case received notice that a motion of summary judgment had been made and granted to the plaintiff in the case, which had proceeded without notice to, or knowledge of by the defendant in the case.  Dated Sept 6 - 1995 [Exhibit S]

17.   On  Oct 3 -1995  Defendant in the case received notice from the court  of judgment in favor of the plaintiff Dated Sept 27 1995 [Exhibit T]

18.  On  Oct 4 1995  Defendant in the case  filed for Motion to set aside Judgment    [Exhibit U]

19.   On September 29 -1995  Defendant in the case at last received copy of  Plaintiff’s “Motion for summary judgment” (Exhibit  V]

20.   Plaintiff’s in the case filed “opposition to Motion to set aside Judgment” dated October 10 - 1995  [Exhibit  W]

21.    Defendant in the case filed “Rebuttal to Plaintiff’s Opposition to motion to set aside judgment” dated October 17 - 1995 [Exhibit Y]

22.   On November 17 -1995 the court recorded notice to grant vacating the judgment, ordering defendant to reply to motion for summary judgment".  And violated the legal and common human right of defendant in the case - by ordering him not to make any defense for himself on the case at hand for which the trial date of Jan 11 -1996 was ordered and set.  [Exhibit  Z]

23.   On December 11 -1995 Defendant in the case filed his “Responds to Motion for Summary Judgment".  And “Motion to re-establish Outstanding Motion for Default".  [Exhibit AA]   And “Redress of motion to declare default, and Counter-suit for damages”  [Exhibit AB]

24.   On December 28 Plaintiff’s in the case filed “Reply to defendant’s responds to motion for summary judgment, and to defendant’s motion to re-establish outstanding motion for default [Exhibit AC]

25.   On Apr January 26 -1995 Defendant in the case received notice of the court      [Exhibit AD] dated January 12 -1996

26.  On February 5 -1996 Defendant in the case filed “Reply to motion for summary judgment".  [Exhibit a]  and “Letter to the court".  [Exhibit B]

27.   On April 29 -1996 Defendant in the case received letter from the court Exhibit [Exhibit AE] ordering approval and settling of formal written judgment.

28.   On May 2 -1996 Defendant telephoned the court speaking to a lady named Tricia as to the status of the case, and was told that it was waiting for formal signing of the judgment.

29. On Sept 18 -1995 Defendant again telephoned the court speaking to a lady, (not Tricia) as to the status, and was informed by her that judgment was signed on April 2 of 1996.

CV 97-4



Case # 97-1786 Notice and order of reference to a United States Magistrate judge

Pursuant to the provisions of the local rules governing duties of magistrate judges, the within action has been assigned to the calendar of the honorable (James A Hesman.)  US District judge, and referred to US magistrate judge (Elgin Edwards) who is authorized to consider preliminary matters and to conduct all further hearings as may be appropriate or necessary.  Thereafter unless the magistrate judge determines that a trial by a district judge is required the magistrate judge shall prepare a report and recommendation and file it with the clerk of the court together with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law where necessary, or appropriate, and a proposed written order or judgment, which shall be mailed to the parties.  In the event the magistrate judge concludes that a trial by a magistrate judge is required, the magistrate judge shall so report to the district judge

Correspondence, pleadings, and other matters to be called to the magistrate judge's attention shall be formally submitted through the clerk of the court

Dated 3-20-97 Clerk of US district court

CV 97-5

APR I 7 1997








NO.  CV 97-1786.  JMI (EE)



On March 20, 1997, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action based on events which allegedly took place in the State of Arizona against defendants Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County; Judge William J. Schafer III; Judge Rebecca A. Albrech; Thomas A. McCarthy; and Arthur W. Vance.

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action not based on diversity be brought only in "(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district.  The claim arose in Maricopa County, which is located in the District of Arizona.  Therefore, plaintiff's claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.  "The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it he in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46 v. McClatchy Newspapers, 762 F.2d 741, 746 (9th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is [transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

April 17-97     Elgin Edwards

United States Magistrate Judge,   James M. Ideman   United States District Judge


CV 97-6

Leonard Van Zanten

Dear Mr. Vance.

Received your Motion to Dismiss on case # CV 97-1786-JMI,

This is to inform you, and herewith attached copy of TRANSFER ORDER by Judge James M. Ideman of the US District Court Central district of California.

Meanwhile Laurie A. Woodall, Assistant Attorney General, State bar No. 004943 1275 West Washington, Phoenix AZ 85007  (602) 542-8322 - has been assigned PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE on behalf of the remaining parties, Judge William J. Schafer III, Judge Rebecca A. Albrecht, and Thomas A. McCarthy.

I have been in contact with her regarding the transfer of the file from the Central District of Calif, to the US District Court for the District of Arizona, (US Court house & Federal Bldg 230 N 1st Ave. Phoenix AZ, room 1400  (602) 514-7100.

We are as yet awaiting that transfer, and as soon as it does and a case number has been assigned, I will properly serve the summons, and process the other matters (inclusive reply)

I plan to call the Court in Phoenix again on June 16 or 17 if said transfer has been received.  If not I will call the Court in Santa Ana where the order was mailed from, and if still nothing has been accomplished, perhaps I should re-file the case in Phoenix, I will confer with Laurie A. Woodall before taking this step

Yours Kindly

Leonard Van Zanten

Copy to Laurie A. Woodall


CV 97-7

Leonard Van Zanten

US District Court.  Central district of Calif. June 18-97

751 W Santa Ana Blvd. Santa Ana Ca.

Dear Concern

You have in your files on April 17 of 1997 a TRANSFER ORDER from Judge James M. Ideman.  Reference case NO: CV 97-1786 JMI (EE) Leonard Van Zanten Vs the Superior Court of the State of Arizona

To transfer said case to the United states District Court for the District of Arizona 230 N 1st Ave.  Phoenix AZ. 85025.

We have inquired on several occasions but they have not as of yet received the file from you.

Would you please check into this and transfer said file to the Court in Phoenix and send me a memo as to when the same was mailed

Thank you

Leonard Van Zanten.


CV 97-8


Office of the clerk Jul 3-1997

Re: Transfer of civil rights case no CV-97-1786 JMI

Case Title: Leonard Van Zanten Vs the Superior court of the state of Arizona et al.


Dear Sir.

An order having been made transferring the above numbered case to your district, we are transmitting herewith our entire original file in the action, together with certified copies of the order and the docket.  Please acknowledge receipt of the same and indicate below the number you have assigned to this matter on the enclosed copy of this letter and return it to our office.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Yours truly.  Clerk of US district court

(Case should have been transferred in its entire dt 4-17-97


CV 97-9


July 14-97

Leonard Van Zanten

Re: Leonard Van Zanten.  Vs Arizona Superior Court et al. Civ-97-1786-JMI (EE)


Dear Mr. Van Zanten

The above mentioned cause of action has been received in this district and has been assigned to the honorable Robert C. Broomfield for all further proceedings.  All future pleadings should now list the complete file number CIV-97-1410 PHX-RCB

If any documents have been filed in California since the transfer of this case, please arrange with the clerk there to send them to this office for filing.  All pending matters must be re-noticed before this court


Richard H. Weare, Clerk/DCE