Civil 7

CV 30-1    To index

 

JOHN P. VANNI, State Bar No. 128228

CYNTHIA MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES

MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

MARGARET LOEB, et al.,             No. 300115

(Plaintiffs,)                                       PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO

v.                                                     DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN             SISTER STATE JUDGMENT

Defendant.

DATE: November 4, 1997.  TIME: 8:30 p.m.) DEPT.: 6 __________________

To defendant Leonard Van Zanten, in propria persona:

Comes now the plaintiffs and opposes defendant's Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment on the following grounds:

1. Defendant's Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment was not timely filed.

2. Defendant has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to relief from the Sister State Judgment entered against him.

DATED: October 1997.           CYNTHIA MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES

By JOHN P VANNI Attorneys for Plaintiffs

FACTUAL SUMMARY

On November 16,1993, a vehicle operated by the defendant Leonard Van Zanten (Van Zanten) was involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle driven by Ms. Margaret Loeb (Loeb).  The accident occurred in Arizona.

Van Zanten pulled from a stop sign into the path of the Loeb vehicle.  Loeb's vehicle was insured through State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company when the accident happened.  Van Zanten carried no insurance for the vehicle he was operating.

Loeb submitted a claim for recovery to her carrier.  After paying Loeb's claim, State Farm filed suit against Van Zanten.  The suit was filed in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, and included Loeb and State Farm as plaintiffs.  At no time during the pendency of that action did Van Zanten request that it be removed to federal court.

On March 27, 1996, State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.  Van Zanten was ordered to pay $8,108.61 plus $147.25 in costs (see a true and correct copy of the Judgment submitted as Exhibit A).  The record is silent as to whether Van Zanten ever filed an appeal to the court's Judgment against him.

On July 7, 1997, plaintiff prepared an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister State Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment.  Both documents were filed with the municipal court of Riverside County on July 21,1997.

On July 10, 1997, plaintiffs served Notice of Entry of Judgment on Van Zanten.  Van Zanten acknowledged receipt on July 14, 1997 (see a true and correct copy of the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt signed by Van Zanten, attached as Exhibit B).

Van Zanten waited until September 3, 1997, to file his Motion to Vacate the Sister State Judgment.  Van Zanten seeks relief from the Arizona Judgment on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud.  Van Zanten also claims that the Judgment against him was taken in violation of the United States Constitution, federal and state laws and the state court proceedings.

No factual support was offered for any of Van Zanten's allegations.  Instead, Van Zanten elected simply to refer the court to his federal Complaint against the Arizona Superior Court and its judges, the Loebs, State Farm and its attorneys.  Van Zanten's Complaint alleged violations of the United States Constitution, federal and state statutes in only the most general terms.  There were no facts submitted by Van Zanten from which the court could justify vacating the Judgment.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

THE COURT SHOULD DENY VAN ZANTEN'S MOTION TO VACATE THE SISTER STATE JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT TIMELY FILED.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1710.40(b) provides in pertinent part: "Not later than 30 days after service of notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Section 1710.30 proof of which has been made in the manner provided by Article 5 (commencing with Section 417.10) of Chapter 4 of Title 5 of Part 2, the judgment debtor on written notice to the judgment creditor, may make a motion to vacate the judgment under this section."  In Tsakos Shipping and Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Townhomes, Ltd. (1993) 12 Cal App 4th 7 (15 Cal.Rptr.2d 585), the court noted that the 30 day period for bringing a motion to vacate a sister state judgment commenced with the service of the notice of the sister state judgment.

Although the Judgment was not actually entered until July 21, 1997, the courts have held that the time for defendant to file a motion to vacate a sister state judgment commenced from the date of notice and not from the date of entry.  See Magalink v. Magalink (1980) 98 Cal. App ad 753 (159 Cal.Rptr. 889); Epps v. Russell (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 201, (133 Cal.Rptr. 30).

On July 10, 1997, plaintiff served Van Zanten with Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister State Judgment by Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt.  Van Zanten acknowledged receipt on July 14, 1997.

Accordingly, Van Zanten had until August 10, 1997, in which to file his Motion to Vacate the Sister State Judgment.Court records show that Van Zanten's Motion was not filed until September 3, 1997; almost three weeks past the statutory deadline.

Nowhere in his moving papers does Van Zanten attempt to explain the reason for his undue delay in filing his Motion to Vacate the Sister State Judgment.

DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF FROM THE SISTER STATE JUDGMENT ENTERED AGAINST HIM.

In Tom Thumb Glove Company, Inc. v. Han (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 1 (144 Cal.Rptr. 30), the court held that "         The burden is on the party seeking relief to show by a preponderance of the evidence why he is entitled to it."  The case cited above also involved a defendant's motion to vacate a sister state judgment based on fraud.

In denying relief, the court noted that the declarations submitted by defendant were somewhat cryptic and unenlightening, enough so that the trial court could reasonably conclude that Han had failed to shoulder the burden of proof placed upon him."

On the issue of fraud, the court observed that "        Since we have already concluded that the trial court properly could have determined that there was no extrinsic fraud meriting relief from the judgment and Han offered no other evidence to show that the North Carolina court's finding that it did have jurisdiction was incorrect, we find no error."

By contrast, Van Zanten's Motion contains no declarations, cryptic or otherwise, that would assist the court in determining whether the Judgment was obtained by fraud, extrinsic or otherwise.

Other than the conclusory allegations in his Complaint, Van Zanten has failed to set forth a single fact justifying the sought after relief.

The Arizona court summarily rendered judgment in this case.  It can be assumed that judgment was therefore rendered after considering the respective declarations of the parties in support and opposition to the summary judgment motion.

In Tom Thumb, supra, the court observed that "       It is for the trial court to evaluate the credibility of witnesses (citation omitted) and the judge may disregard the testimony of any witness, or the effect of any prima facie showing based thereon, when he is satisfied that the witness is not telling the truth or that his testimony is inherently improbable due to its inaccuracy due to uncertainty, lapse of time, or interest or bias of the witness."

Van Zanten’s Motion should be denied, not only because it is untimely, but also because it fails to identify the alleged fraud.  He has simply taken a shotgun approach in attacking the Arizona Judgment.  His defense is that everyone committed error except him.

Van Zanten had his day in court and lost.  He apparently never appealed the Arizona Judgment alleging fraud or violation of his constitutional rights.  He waited until it came time to pay the Judgment to claim that the system had cheated him.

Taken as a whole, his Motion lacks credibility due, in part, to its incredibly improbable nature.  It is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that the entire superior court system conspired against Mr. Van Zanten.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the court deny the defendant's Motion to Vacate the Sister State Judgment.

DATED: October 9 -1997

Respectfully submitted,

CYNTHIA MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES  

By.  JOHN P. VANNI.  Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

CV 30-2

Leonard Van Zanten

MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

MARGARET LOEB, et al      / No. 300115  

Plaintiff,                                   / REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO

vs.                                            / DEFENDANTS MOTION TO VACATE

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN  / SISTER STATE JUDGMENT

Defendant                                / DATE   NOV 4, 1997 _____________________

TO: the PLAINTIFF JOHN P VANNI, Cynthia Martinez, & Associates, Attorney's for plaintiff’s et al.

Comes now DEFENDANT to state for the record the facts, and oppose plaintiff's arguments in their opposition to Defendants Motion to Vacate Sister Judgment.

1.    That Defendant filed “Motion to Vacate Judgment” only because an action against that very judgment was still pending in the federal District Court of Arizona.  And that pending the outcome of that action the execution of the judgment should be withheld.

2.    Defendant requested to vacate the Judgment since Plaintiffs were very well aware that said action was pending against them inclusive fraud on their part, and that said action was timely filed in the Federal District Court of the  State of Arizona according to Rule (60) (c) (3) (4) (6) Quote:

3.    2a. Rule 60.  Relief from judgment or order.  (c) Mistake; Inadvertence; Surprise; Excusable Neglect; Newly discovered evidence; Fraud; etc.  On Motion and upon such terms as are just the Court may relieve a party, or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment order or proceeding for reasons of  (3) Fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party  (6) or any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

And: (4) A motion for relief on the grounds of mistake etc.  Newly discovered evidence or fraud to be made within one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.

3.    Since therefore the action was lawfully made and timely filed, plaintiff's therefore according to rule (60) are obligated to await the outcome of the action currently in the Federal District Court - Phoenix, Arizona.  - before proceeding to bring a sister-State judgment.

4. And in regards to Defendants “Motion to Vacate Judgment" it was timely filed as evidenced from the attached documents Exhibits A, and B.  And as herein further stated.

5.    And that defendant is not obligated to bring before this Court all the charges, together with their evidence and their whole inventory of exhibits to (as plaintiff said) seek by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to relief from the Sister-State Judgment, since the very same motion and action thereto already rests with the Federal District Court, Phoenix Arizona.

6.    And that; Defendant cannot be asked to serve the same defense in two separate courts simultaneously against the one and same judgment.  Defendant is not able to serve both as plaintiff and as defendant in one and the same case.  Nor does this Court, the Municipal Court of the state of California - have the Jurisdiction to rule upon the issues that currently face the plaintiff's in Defendant’s action and appeal to overturn or otherwise vacate the relevant judgment against him.

7.    The Issues, Fraud, and Gross Violation of Constitutional Rights, which plaintiff’ claims I the defendant fail to identify here in this court, are in fact very well defined and currently before the eyes of the Judge of the Federal District Court which has jurisdiction in such matters, and defendant cannot very well rob the Federal Court thereof to have the case put to a conclusion in this Municipal Court.  Nor is defendant asking for this California Court to conclude the matter, but rather to by some means order the plaintiff, to await the outcome of the trial in the Federal Court.

8.    Defendant therefore requests of this court to: (a) On the basis of the foregoing, Dismiss the “Sister-State Judgment”. 

Or (b) Grant a stay of execution pending the outcome of case in suit in the Federal District Court in the State of Arizona.

Or (c) Grant defendants motion to vacate Judgment.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

To Plaintiff’s and the Court.

Plaintiff claims, Page 2 of plaintiff’s opposition, lines 19-27 that both Application for entry of judgment and notice of Entry of judgment were filed with the Municipal Court on July 21, And; that defendant on July 14 acknowledged receipt of the notice, and that defendant waited until September 3 of 1997 to file a motion to vacate Judgment.

The true facts being, that yes I did receive a notice on July 14-1997 that was dated July 10-1997.

But defendant did prepare a motion to vacate judgment, which by means of my wife I did take to the municipal Court in Riverside on July the 14th to file the same, where she was informed that plaintiff, (although he had sent me an notice of entry) he had not filed the same with the court, wherefore the court could not accept my motion to be filed with them, there being no case to file anything with.

Nevertheless a copy of that motion was mailed to the plaintiff which (trusting the postal service) received the same on the 15th of July 1997

Accordingly, I was to await until there was in fact a case filed by the plaintiff.

As then on Aug 29 1997 I received an “Abstract of Judgment" dated Aug 28 1997, showing a case number (300115) upon which without delay I filed my “Motion to Vacate Judgment” Two working days later on Sept 3 1997, Exhibits A, and B, to show concurring dates herewith attached.

 So then my dear plaintiff if you filed your notice of Entry on July 21, why did you wait five weeks to inform me?

And why when on July 10 1997 you send me the notice did you not file the same with the court but caused me to go to the court for nothing?

But now concluding from all this I begin to see how this is nothing but a scheme you perpetrate to trap the innocent and unwary.  Yes I had the dignity and the courtesy to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence, but you are devoid of dignity and of courtesy hiding the fact that you did receive my motion on July the 15th.

You have the gall in your unprofessional manner to recite some case where the 30-day period is accounted from the date of notice, rather than of the filing thereof.  And yes let that case be accursed for that is assuredly a miscarriage of justice.

But you carry the malice of injustice even further, for while I came within four days of your notice to file my motion, you did not bother to file until eleven days later, {if in fact you did file on July 21-97, for I have to be presented with the evidence thereof} But then you waited 35 days to inform me of the fact that you had filed.

In other words you wanted to be sure that my 30 days were long passed {as in by trapping} so that at end you would come proudly before the Judge acclaiming; “See Judge throw him out and hang him, for he passed his 30 days, I got him on a technicality, for it is by such shenanigans that we practice law.”

My dear plaintiff, you opposition to my motion is a disgrace, and your notice of entry first sent, a lie, because although you noted me -you did not make an entry, wherefore as such it is little more than a piece of paper, and worthless at that.

CONCLUSION

For four years in this case alone I have been fighting with beasts, with ignorance, with deceit, and with the foul stench of fraud, and disregard for human rights, all in an attempt to find some truth or justice.  Yet now I testify that I have not found it among men, nor am I likely to in the race of men.

And I wish to express to the Court and to all peoples reading these words that I am truly in fact disgusted with the counselors of men and their slippery ways by which they snake themselves through the courts, by and through which even the courts have lost out in respect and honor.

Hear then this you counselors of men; I am no longer going to put myself out to prove any more of your lies as lies, nor your unprofessional behavior as deceit.  For it has become truly disgusting to me even to take up a defense against the likes of you.

It is indeed disgusting that I should have to write a defense such as this, even if it is for nothing more than to set the record straight.  For now I just as soon pay them their robbery, and let the wicked fall in their own trap rather than to see justice done by the courts.  All these petty and trivial arguments in effect account for nothing but to make men appear no more than an animal bereft of rational conduct and expression.

Therefore I am calling for an end to the issue of debate and reasoning with men, to instead, in the name of the Almighty God take the Helm of justice and furnish men with their reward rather than with debate.

Respectfully.  Leonard Van Zanten

Oct 30-1997__

Copy of the foregoing filed in the Municipal Court.  Riverside Ca.

John P Vanni

 

LETTER TO Consumer affairs,

California State Contractors board

Consumer Affairs.

Mrs. Rosalynn Russell.  Complaint NE 92 7617.                  Nov 23 92

Dear Mrs. Russell.

No doubt you have heard of the Nuremberg trials, meaning; there is no escape from justice.  These criminals, like you and others in your organization would have us believe that they were merely doing the duties of their office, merely following orders.  You add crime upon crime, and do you now think that the case is closed that by writing a little note you shall triumph with injustice?

The investigation into your criminal deeds have yet to begin.  You are to fill-up your wicked measure, just as these war criminals did, then comes the investigation and the reward, neither they nor you will escape.

When I brought my case before the State Board I anticipated that those in it would act with grave injustice, and I realized that this would make them yet more guilty.  I realized that by coming to you your pains would be multiplied, and yet I proceeded to lay this snare before you, because you pride yourselves in being a ruling agency dedicated to guide and enforce justice while in fact you dedicate yourselves to criminal oppression and injustice.  Moreover it is both my right and my duty to call upon the authorities (you) when I am being robbed by those whom you license to act in such affairs.

I placed a very clear case before you, one that could not be mistaken.  And what excuse will you now have, that you were wholly ignorant and devoid of knowledge wherefore you were unable to make a right judgment?  This will not serve as an excuse, for why then are you sitting in a seat of authority?  Moreover the penalty of ignorance is death.

Look for yourself how the thief in his own written statements never denied his robbery, and when so confronted by you he invented a "new" excuse as if there were back charges.  And what did you do?  You served him in his criminal act.  For even "if" such existed, do I not have the right to defend myself?  Should you not at the least have given me the opportunity to redress against such charges?

Of course you should have, but you became an accessory to all his crimes, for in essence you have send him notice in writing saying; "We not only sanction all your criminal acts, but when anyone brings charges against you - we will deplore him and cover your acts of injustice."  Quite many of these General Contractors are outright gangsters.  And "why" are they so hated and ill spoken of these days?  Because "you" and many like you in your organization are their teachers, teaching them to corrupt and practice injustice with free reign.

This then I wish to impress upon you Mrs. Russell; All your sins are "yet" for investigation.  You had done better to hang a millstone around your neck and to drown yourself.  Or commit suicide in any which way rather than to take up my file and to offend me.  For He who defends me is Almighty and loves justice, like the prophet said; "Your cry shall be heard, cry for judgment and it shall appear for you, for all your tribulations shall be for investigation from the Authorities against them and against everyone who assisted in plundering you."

It however it not my desire to punish nor to destroy you Mrs. Russell, for as long as there is yet breath in your mouth there is time and chance for you to repent of your wicked deeds, and to correct what needs correcting.  This letter to you is not to pronounce a judgment, but rather to impress upon you how that if you do not act speedily - the investigation of the Highest Authority and its consequent reward will assuredly overtake you.

And why should you want to dwell in such misery and pain, where each day and night your mind will be occupied with fear and regret, saying to yourself.  "How could I have been so careless, I thought of my job to follow the guidelines set for me, but these were as ignorant as the men that made them.  Now I realize that no man is an authority, and that each person for himself is duty bound to ensure justice against all odds, and against all rule and regulation.  But I was stupid and ignorant in these matters, and now I suffer the pains for it.  And yes, I was told but I paid him no heed, now he has become my accuser and all those which I served with injustice."

With love and kindness. Leonard Van Zanten.

To: Riverside Police Department, and Municipal Court

Reference: Citation 002787RD

Do not imagine that you shall go free you band of thieves, highway robbers, for the vengeance of the Lord shall surely overtake you for all your criminal deeds, and for your extortion, and for all the lies and deceit of your mouth.

I saw you take that picture of me and I noted my speed, which was '45' mph - which you know very well.  And so "why" then the lie upon which you follow with extortion to say "55"mph?

I am not new to that road, and will you now contend with me saying; "you were playing a fair game, that you were not intentionally setting a trap exclusively for greed and extortion?"  But even if I were to overlook all this, this one thing that you did, namely "to blatantly and criminally add 10 none existent miles to my speed", is vulgar and unforgivable, that makes you out for liars and perfect criminals.  For again, it is to be remembered that you were not just anyone, but you represent the law.  For a man to speak a lie is vulgar, so then for you it is sevenfold more vulgar.

O how foolish you are, you have committed this thing against your own lives you know.  And what is more lewd is that; while you falsely lean upon the law to play your extortion, you have yet the gall to say that.  "This is in order to reduce the number of accidents and injuries and death."

O you hypocrites, you cause injury upon injury with your violence, your lawlessness, and your injustice, and yet you dare to stage a facade as if it were to prevent injuries?  You are contemptible.  Try being honest and forthright for a change - then you shall not need a facade, but as it is - you have already sentenced yourselves in "The" court of law.

You should have done me a favor, instead of taking a picture - you should have shot me, you should have blessed me in taking me out of this world, away from you and from all those like you.  If you had any regard for me you should have closed my eyes that never again they would have to look upon your vile deeds, nor my ear ever again bear the burden of your hypocrisy.  I call the dead blessed, and your kind the curse of the earth.

I of course know your ignorance, and how blind you truly are, for you will have the ignorance to reply to me; "that if I wish to contest this citation I can come before a judge."  And do you now really think that an innocent person has a chance before your judges?  Look around you if there is sight in you, there is no justice in these courts except for perfect criminals.  Moreover, as we know very well, this whole scheme is with the blessing and the consent of your judges.

In your ignorance you may laugh at this, as if justice will never be executed, but therein my dear friend you are wrong, for even I will execute it upon you in the day that the Almighty Judge gives me the rod of His power to execute justice.  You would have done better to falsely give your President a fine; the most he could do in return is to accuse you in Hell.  Instead in your greed you falsely accused a prince of the Lord Most High.  And so it is clear that you do not regard law, nor respect authority, nor do you realize from where vengeance will come.

It however is at your doorstep.  In that day you will weep, and indeed meditate upon all your criminal acts which you committed under the disguise of law and order.  In that day you will cry for mercy from me.  But "why" in that day should I have mercy on you - when you had none on me, nor even the courtesy after this reprove to come to apologize?

Your crime is horrendous - as an agent of the law to mis-use the same with lies and deceit.  What was it that the Great Lord of all said?  "Shall He be pleased with gifts?  No, but this He requires of you, "But to do justice, and to love kindness".  He hates the scant measure, and the man with a bag of deceitful weights - like your added mileage.

The hungry soul that at the point of a gun robs a store will find mercy before you will enter into the courts of my Lord to review your case, for you are sevenfold more wicked and accursed than such other robbers.

Leonard Van Zanten.

TO:   Riverside County Jury Commissioner, and the Courts

Feb-23-97

Dear Concern.

No doubt there is a truth in where you state that quote; “Jury duty is your civic responsibility."  But it is also my duty and commanded me of God, the Almighty Judge not to serve you or to participate in any of your kind of justice.  Because your judges are corrupt, your juries a joke, and the justice that proceeds from your courts a contempt, all of which in the eyes of Truth is punishable by death.  And you along with your judges and the juries will surely perish because you served the cause of injustice, and/or because you made justice to a mockery and were ignorant of right from wrong.  And again I say to you;    “Ignorance is punishable by death.”

If therefore you have the good sense to heed my warning there may be hope for you.  But this warning will not be repeated, and even without this warning your death and that of all that serve the courts is imminent and will not be postponed.

The Lord my God said: “Blessed is the man that does not sit in the counsel of the ungodly, who does not pervert justice in the court, or participate in any cause of injustice."  And, “The Lord loves those that hate evil."  And, “No man who practices deceit shall dwell in My house, no man who utters lies shall continue in My presence.”

How then do you seek me out to serve in your courts O you children of men seeing you do not understand justice and what proceeds from the mouth of your judges is only folly and oppression.  And do not attempt to correct me for again it is written; “Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely".

I am indeed angry with you, and with your judges who do not comprehend the cause of justice.  And wills you have me in your court you shall have to give me supreme authority as I have received of the Lord my God to judge nations and judges, and to exact justice as my Lord expects of me and decrees.  And if this does not suit you, then either depart from me, or send one of your officers out to kill me.  For I will die sooner than to serve your cause of justice as it is commanded me of the Lord my God, the Almighty God and Judge of the whole world.

Let us now say that ignorance, while it is punishable by death has nevertheless a means of finding mercy provided you pay heed to the warning given you.  And to that end (for I am compassionate and do not seek the death of any man).  I am herewith forwarding a word to the wise (Serving Justice) that you may learn how to conduct yourself in a court of law, and what you should practice in order to obtain justice, and to find the meaning thereof.  

And do not in your ignorance write any longer in bold lettering that “jury duty is one’s civic responsibility,” but if so to add to it in the same bold lettering that in this nation as “A nation under God” that.  “By the command of God it is also everyone’s responsibility not to participate or serve in any cause or action that is not fully and wholesomely according to truth and justice.

Yours.  Leonard Van Zanten.

CV-R3-1

JET AGE M.A.C.

Electrical Contractors, Riverside, CA

To OSHA State of California, department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and health

Appeal to Citation

I Leonard Van Zanten owner and operator of Jet Age Mac, (Electrical Contractor) hereby do appeal the citations hereto attached, and claim damages for physical and mental aggravation and harassment and for costs of suit and or appeal.

Regarding #T8CCR 2320,2 (a) (2) that work shall not be performed on exposed Energized parts until personal have received instructions etc.

That this alleged violation on the part of Osha is merely an insinuation, a clear act of prejustice for which Osha has no evidence, nor any circumstantial cause or reason.

Osha does not know nor did the investigating officer question whether or not proper instructions were given.

True facts of the matter

(a)   That the employee was properly instructed.  (instructions less than 2 hours previous to the incident by myself on location)

(b)    That the employee was a full-fledged journeyman with min of nine years of experience.  And deemed well able to perform all occupational duties

(c)    That in all of my 35 years of experience in the electrical field having been with and seen the work and capacity of many electrical workers I judge this employee to be more capable than most, and in general having good judgment, being courteous and with rational behavior.  So much so that without reservation I rely myself upon his occupational judgments.

Furthermore I am citing Osha for neglect and intentionally leaving a hazard to safety

That the energized equipment at the Ontario Mills Mall where the incident occurred was and still is in violation of code, of the National Electrical code, and was and still is an hazard is unsafe.

That it is not only my contention, but that it is an ABSOLUTE FACT, and unassailable certainty, that IF THE EQUIPMENT HAD BEEN BUILT AND DESIGNED OCCORDING TO CODE, And/or COMMON SENSE AND PRACTICE THE ACCIDENT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED, This is not merely to say that the accident could have been prevented, but far more simply said, The accident would have been impossible to occur.

For had the conventional disconnects, (Circuit breakers) had been visible, the employee, as any other persons, would have simply flipped the appropriate disconnect without harm or incident to himself

As the employer previous to the incident I was not aware of the fact that the energized equipment was in violation of code and standard practice.

And as an employer having been 35 years of experience, in all the 35 years of my experience, I never once have seen or encountered such odd and illogical and unsafe manner of equipment.

When therefore I pointed to the employee the location of the electrical room and instructed the employee to disconnect power to the unit # 319 I fully expected for him to find a switchgear section built and marked according to standard practice, which as such is equipment built according to code, National Electrical code.

I therefore fully expected him to find clearly marked disconnect, which if not directly visible would be behind a conventional door, like something with a handle on it, something obvious as being a door or cover shielding disconnects.

But at no time would I have expected, as neither my employee did, that one would have to UNSCREW a cover plate in order to expose disconnects, since by standard practice the only thing behind screwed on cover plates are the energized bars, and or wiring, NOT disconnects.

The CAUSE of the accident is ONLY and CLEARLY the UNSAFE construction of the equipment.  Had it been built according to code, this accident would not and could not have occurred

JET AGE M.A.C     Electrical Contractors

TO:  State of California                         July 3-1997

Dept. of Industrial relations

Att:   Richard H Stone

Dear Mr. Stone

Attached Newspaper report may or may not be of interest to you in the case regarding Eric Wellenreuther.

Not all is correct, Mall employees did not shut off five other stores, their power was cut by the short causing the 1200 amp main to trip on its ground fault, while Electricians working next door came to turn that main back on.

JET AGE M.A.C     Electrical Contractors

TO:  State of California                         July 3-1997

Dept. of Industrial relations

Att:   Richard H Stone

Dear Mr. Stone

Herewith faxed copy of employer's report of occupational injury.  And the doctor’s first report

And, I went through the whole file for an Employers written IIPP program paper, but found no such copy, the papers which I surmised might have been it, were letters or copies regarding Injury report, and Workers compensation rates etc.

Is that paper supposed to be sent to me by the Workers insurance Co?  Or what?  Should I ask them for it?

Yours   Leonard Van Zanten.   Jet Age Mac.

Ps: Something that may have to do with your investigation.  It is clear from the National Electrical Code that the panel where the injury occurred is in violation thereof, To wit, the disconnects are not - as per code - readily accessible.  (Had they been, this injury could have been prevented.)

Moreover what the Mall management referred to as A BOY, is in fact a 29 year old MAN with sufficient experience in the trade, I know him for years and hired him as my first employee since last February, and he is quite qualified, I would not want to lose him under any circumstance.

 

Leonard Van Zanten               Docket #  97-R3D3-2623  

TO: CAL OSHA  

From:                                         PREHEARING STATEMENT

Leonard Van Zanten  

Dba Jet Age M.A.C

Foremost, on the matter stated herein-after, I do not recognize the authority of Cal-OSHA, because the action and conduct of Cal-OSHA is construed with discrimination, with contempt, with malice, and with arrogance in violation of U.S, and State Constitutional rights, wherefore and whereby CAL OSHA is and was acting outside of its jurisdictional perimeter.  (Note 1)

Cal OSHA has made the accusation that an employee of mine became injured because I did not give him proper instructions, in the case where the Employee was to turn off power to a certain unit in an electrical room at the Ontario Mills Mall, city of Ontario Ca.  The charge of which is not only absurd, but malicious, since clearly:

In the first instant: It is not as such required of me to have given my employee such instruction,  (Note -2 & 5.)

In the second instant: I nevertheless did give him instruction, proper instructions, of which Mr. Richard W. Stone, who represented himself as an official of Cal-OSHA was very well aware.

As then the intend and malice of the Cal OSHA official (Mr. Stone) is one thing, (Note 3.)  His superiors, as Cal OSHA, appear to perpetrate that; if I send a man down the street to fetch something and he falls and hurts himself in a pit that had no safeguards around it - then it shall be my fault.  For what should I have done, perhaps to tell him to walk around the pit, or warned him about the facts that there were no safeguards?

But what makes you at Cal OSHA think that I even knew there was a pit?  Do you expect employers to be as Almighty God to know all things before they occur?  Or do you at Cal OSHA expect employers to walk in front of each of their employees just in case one might get hurt?  If that were the case, who needs employees?

No quite the contrary, I have a full right to expect from others to leave common tools -like switch-gear in safe conditions, especially since in all of my 30 year profession the switch-gear I have come up against contained the required safety measures, and why then should I have expected any different when I told my employee at the Ontario Mills Mall to disconnect the unit at its circuit switch?

What in fact are you at Cal OSHA saying?  - that I should have known that here was a union contractor who by all standards performed a lousy job, their work clearly un-professional and in violation of code, {Note 5] which as I later discovered was not only with the metering section but with the wiring and other items as well.

As therefore you at Cal Osha know very well that it is a breach of occupational safety to leave an open pit without safeguards, so it is a breach to leave a tool such as a disconnect panel without proper access and labeling.

And why then - if indeed job safety is of any concern to Cal OSHA - did you not do something about it seeing that by cause of it a man sustained serious injury?

Moreover; If, as Cal OSHA has stated, that it has no jurisdiction for the safety of that panel-board than it has neither any jurisdiction to even investigate the matter let alone making any ruling regarding an employee working on that unsafe peace of equipment.

CONCLUSION

Judging from the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, Cal OSHA has no call, nor any right, nor jurisdiction to city me for failure to instruct or properly instruct my employee.

And secondly: Since Cal OSHA by its representatives took it upon itself to act with malice and with discrimination against me as an employer, - it stepped outside of its bounds of jurisdiction, and violated the rights of the individual guaranteed unto him by U.S. and State Constitutional directives.

And thirdly: worse than any of the above, Cal OSHA as an public agency instituted and perpetuated to monitor, regulate, and enforce job safety measures, by their own statements, and attitude has clearly shown that instead of occupational safety - it is more interested in maliciously persecuting employers and the victims rather than the culprits to a serious injury.

If then you people at Cal OSHA wonder why it seems that I do not have respect for representatives of Cal OSHA, or for Cal OSHA as a whole, it is foremost because of the attitude, the malice and the arrogance of its representatives.

NOTES

[Note-1]  Osborn v. Bank of United States.  holds in that; “a State official possesses no official capacity when acting illegally."  (9 Wheat. at 858-59, 868. see Ex parte Young, 209 US 123 (1908).

[Note 2]  Electrical circuit breakers and disconnects such as are contained within the metering section and load centers are items that are for the use of and accessible to everyone within the State of California and all of the United States.  Every home-owner has free access to his main and secondary circuit disconnects.  And every business has, and is legally given free access to the same.

As therefore the tenants at the Ontario Mills Mall (or any mall or business) by any representative have legal access to the main disconnect by which the electrical power to their store is controlled - so Cal OSHA can not dictate that the same shall be by qualified experienced electricians only.  Nor does Cal OSHA therefore have any right to take this one step further to demand that; before a qualified electrician shall enter upon a disconnect panel that the same shall be briefed and instructed by his employer.

As anyone with common sense will realize - it is for safety sake that everyone is given access to disconnects so that in the event of an emergency anyone may effect the safety measure.  And now Cal OSHA who is supposed to stand for and enforce safety measures will oppose this measure of safety, and go as far as to contradict it - to make the whole thing unsafe?  Let then the building in which Cal OSHA resides be in life threatening condition unless the power is turned off, and let them sit and wait for a qualified electrician to turn off the switch - and see how they like it.  My guess is they will soon turn from their hypocrisy.

And so it is not, contrary to what Cal OSHA wish to perpetrate, essential for me as an employer to specifically out of the normal routine instruct an qualified employee when he is called upon to turn off a main disconnect when the same may be done by anyone without such qualifications or instructions.

[Note 3]  From the start Mr. Richard M. Stone presented himself in an arrogant manner conducting himself as if he and his agency were God and everyone is supposed to shake and tremble before him.  When therefore I was not impressed by his arrogance, he shoved his badge again under my nose so as to intimidate me.  The only thing he however accomplished was to earn my disgust of him.

In the first minutes it became clear to everyone around that this man was not interested in conducting an inquiry into an accident, but rather - so as it was quoted to me - he was looking for a victim, to screw somebody in the malice and arrogance that was written all over him.  Only I was not aware at the time that this meant employers, preferably none union employers.  Which fact became clear afterwards that this man did not give a damn about job safety, but rather how in the least of ways he could screw the employer,

But what angered me most was the foul hypocrisy of that man to say:  “I have a serious injury on my hand".  O you miserable person, the only real thing on your hand is hypocrisy and undue arrogance, and not you have a serious injury on your hand, but I do, and my employee has - thanks to your beloved union employees and their employer in their gross negligence as the prime culprits.  And also thanks to you and to Cal-OSHA as now being accessories thereto.

Nor have I forgotten your lousy insult, saying: “that I had better not discriminate against this man (my employee)" And just what were you accusing me of you hypocrite?  For I would be the last person in the world to discriminate against anything or anyone, while your first word is discrimination.  You discriminate against employers, and union from none union, which thing though not directly visible is nonetheless written all over you by your own remarks, and you have the gall to even remark twice to me about discrimination?  This is sick, and disgusting, and indeed angers me.

I could have fired the employee for not following my instructions.  But then I did not because under the conditions his mis-judgment was primarily due and instigated by Meir Meadows, the contractor that installed the panel in the unsafe condition in which it was found.  And I am appalled at the recklessness at which this contractor and his employees (union or otherwise) perform their work and leave their equipment be.

[Note 4]  If Cal OSHA can cite people for unsafe tools and equipment such as drop-cords, ladders, and electrical tools from which the safety devices are not functioning, then they should very well include electrical disconnects, be it on motors, generators, load centers or other power sources - since these items are tools all the like with which electrician work daily

If therefore Cal OSHA wish to claim that it has no responsibility for the safety of the equipment such as disconnects with which we work.  Then Cal OSHA is legally bound by its own word and action to refund every single fine they have ever levied against any employer for the unsafe condition of any tool.  For the same proves Cal OSAH to be nothing more than hypocrites - since even in the assumption that Cal OSAH has no direct jurisdiction covering disconnects.

The least that they could have and should have done was to notify Meir Meadows the union contractor that the panel which they installed was not in keeping with standard safety practice, and in violation of national and local codes, and that they should correct the same since on account of it a man sustained serious injury, rather than maliciously cite some innocent party with a none existent allegation.

[Note 5}  National Electrical Code Article 100

Accessible  ((as applied to equipment) admitting close approach: not guarded by locked doors, elevation, or other effective means.  (See Accessible Readily)

Accessible Readily: (Readily Accessible) Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections, without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, chairs, etc.  (See Accessible)

380-8 Accessibility

(a) Location.  All switches and circuit breakers used as switches shall be so located that they may be opened from a readily accessible place.

384-13

All panel-boards circuits and circuit modifications shall be legibly identified as to purpose or use on a circuit directory located on the face of, or inside of the panel.

FACT at Ontario Mills Mall Ontario Ca.

The equipment was neither readily accessible (located behind screwed down panels - as an indication that there are no switches behind it) nor legibly identified (no indication whatsoever given as to where or if switches may be located, or present.

Leonard Van Zanten   Jet Age M.A.C. 

BEFORE THE HIGH TRIBUNAL

OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD AND JUDGE

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN, Plaintiff,

vs.

THE NATIONS, Defendant

On the matter of law and justice

Leonard to the generations to come

When judges are above the law there is no law and consequently no justice.   When a man is held not be responsible for his actions or his word, he has violated all precepts of law and human endeavor and there is no compulsion to perform justice.   When fear of the law ceases justice fails and inequity abounds

Citing basic law; that there is but one law, which is not by man nor does it depend on man but as by way of speaking it stands alone, and that one of lower authority shall not sit in judgment of one in higher authority should not be anything new to the minds of man, nor the concept of equal rights under the law.   While then these things are understood by man they are not valued as such since the heart is desperately corrupt, and selfish thoughts rule man more than any other.

The law is single, and summed up in no more than a single sentence, which is; "To love God and your neighbor as yourself."   That is the one and only law and no other law exists, nor can it exist. For again; "To do unto others as you would have them do to you," is the same law.    And having equal rights under the law is again part of that same law.    If then any man judges let him judge by that law and that law alone, for he who does not so is guilty under the law.    For he who judges differently is not judging by law but has made himself a judge of the law as in placing himself above it.

As then all these things are (supposedly) basic and common knowledge, and should not have to be taught, yet the judges of men (more than any) show themselves to be devoid of that basic common knowledge.

My story

The issue of this record started when a lady signaled me that she was to make a turn and had gone over to the side of the road to do so, wherefore I proceeded to cross the street, when she struck me having changed her mind at the last instant to instead proceed straight on. The cause to the incident then was negligence in the lady in having promised me to turn - instead continued straight on,

As then Judge Green swore me to the law of the Almighty God, I re-iterated the law before him; that; "When one who gives a promise and then does not keep it, it is a theft," Judge Green had no comprehension of the law of truth, or of the oath he had sworn, or of justice and equity, and in violation of the law, and of his own oath, and the one he made me to swear he rendered judgment against me, and none against the lady.

As then the insurance company of the lady attempted to collect from me, The superior court of Arizona appointed an arbitrator McCarthy. The trial of which was nothing short of a kangaroo court, and absolutely a waste of my time and my speech, since he had long decided before I ever entered the office of the arbitrator, and nothing I said could or would have made any difference, and even my very presence seemed an intrusion and repugnant to the arbitrator.

Then I filed an appeal with the court which was assigned to judge Shafer, and a trial date was set for March 7, When therefore I appeared at the court on the date and hour specified, my opponent defaulted, he did not show on account that he had canceled it without my knowledge or approval thereof.

This came about since in the weeks previous thereto we had some discussion regarding a settlement, but this settlement had not come to a conclusion, and my opponent was very well aware thereof by telephone calls and by fax messages, And even 3 days previous to the trial he was un-mistakenly notified that there would be no settlement, yet the very afternoon before the trial date he called judge Shafer informing him of which he knew was a lie that a settlement had been reached, and did not bother to inform me that he had called off the trial.

Judge Shafer then was in error to accept the cancellation without at least some evidence thereto, and which did not come forth even as I was there.   Herein judge Shafer is guilty, especially since afterwards he received all the evidence that my opponent had committed fraud and perjury before the court, and accordingly should have awarded me judgment by default.

Next I not only sued for judgment by default, but also brought charges of fraud and perjury against my opponent, for which judge Shafer set a trial date of Aug 30, Since then I feared that I might not be in this country on that date, I requested an different trial date which was granted setting it at Jan 11

But no sooner became my opponent aware of the fact that I might be out of the country he proceeded without my knowledge or notice to me to manufacture a judgment against by way of summary judgment. This was in order to squash and eliminate the charges of fraud and perjury against him, also the default against him, acting in his summary judgment as if they did not exist. For he wanted to get a judgment against me before the trial date ever came to pass, in which - with the help and the lawless act of several court judges - he succeeded.

And so by way of the cunning of my opponent, and the malice and false act of the Superior Court judges, I was cheated out of my day in court, and none of the charges that I had brought before the court were ever entertained, but were covered up.

Next I filed an action against the judges and my opponent in a federal court which was dismissed on technicalities, and on the premise that judges can not be sued since they are above the law, and not responsible nor liable for any criminal act or deed of malice they may perform against any man while acting in their capacity as a judge.

DISCOURSE

Of course, any man with knowledge ought to realize that the truth is the reverse, for while it shall be a crime for a judge to act criminally while off duty, this becomes greater while on duty.   But man is but an animal, and worse than that to have no regard for his neighbor along with him, as like unto the lower animals.   And to put it in these words; he is in all respects contrary to the law.   And such are appointed as judges, or such as are appointed judges become that way in their desire for number one, and in the ignorance of man that reduces him to the equal of an animal and the equal of the lower animals.

And so you that have knowledge hear my word and understand that if judges become immune from prosecution - then the law becomes a fatality and justice none existent.   It should be common sense that when the courts cause a person to swear by the law of the Most High Judge, then the judge may not judge him by another law, which things I made amply clear in my defenses, and in my complaints.   It is not unlawful nor unconstitutional to swear by God, since even the constitution of this very nation is said to be "Under God."   But it is unlawful and unconstitutional for a judge to breach his oath in upholding the law\

No one is ever immune from prosecution, immunity is in fact the wrong word, the only one entity immune is the law itself, the one and only true law.   A state for example, is never immune, but rather in the cases where such is named it is simply wrong, or not applicable, if an state official injuries a party it is the official to be sued, not the state unless the state accepts responsibility for the action of the official.   And/or if the official followed state rules, then the rules of the state are in error, in which case the state shall be liable for its error, and the official for complying with the error.

The constitution, (the law) guarantees a man his day in court, and who could possible deny him that right?   A corporate executive?  No!,   One’s employer? No!,  One’s Neighbor? No!   A counselor? No,   But Judges - yes!   For these have the last word when there is no recourse against them.   Wherefore if judges are immune from suits brought against them, then the law of the constitution is abolished, made of no effect.

And who but judges are the ones to deny a person his equal rights under the law?   One person may violate one’s other person equal rights, but short of judges that are above the law no one is able to actually deny him those equal rights.