Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Steven Pascale, Petitioner v. RPI Company

1

im

mmm

Supr©

31

M

i.^2

^ Cour,. us.

No.

JUN | 4 2022

In The

Supreme Court of tire JSmtclbr jStotes

^fjCEOF

1H!L£L£rk

Patricia Pascale et al.

Petitioner,

v.

Rpi Company et al.

Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al.

Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Steven Pascale

12 San Remo

San Clemente, CA 92673

(949) 388-9525

Steve @ AdvertisingTrack.com

received

AUG 1 5 2072

| ?r,FJ§lM0EFCT0H5pCTLE»RSK

Question i Presented

Brayton Law was barred from practicing due to lying,

breach of lawyers oath of office, impropriety, and

dishonesty: See Appendix K, p. 27 (CV 442750 Judge

Harry Hanna, January 18, 2007 / Cuyahoga, Ohio.

“If there had been any complicity by any member

of the Kananian family, such a Draconian

measure migh be appropriate! however, the family

did nothing improper. Therefore, the motion to

dismiss is overruled.”

Given the precedence and anteposition of

C484162 i.e. (1984-1997) being reinstated (2006)

in an “off the record” manner (becoming FCS 10 345910)

for the benefit of fraud, embezzlement, money

laundering, and malice wherein every trial was

illicitly masked from plaintiffs (settlements

misappropriated across 50,000 said defendants).

See Exhibit Preface p. 29. does the Kananian

opinion seem appropriate for FCS 10 345910

and WD BC500626 ? 12 3

1.) PI (pleural - lungs - asbestosis) 1984 -1997. Rose Klein &

Marias - Every trial concealed and every defendant

settlement stolen C484162.

2.) PI (pleural - lungs - asbestosis) C484162 case re-instated for

violations to constitutional rights, malice and oppression.

Long-Cause and believed to be open + being prosecuted.

Every trial concealed - settlements stolen. FCS 10 345910

3.) PI (colon) filed in TX 329014 (Quilling Selandar illegally

retained) 2005 * ? Every trial concealed and every defendant

settlement stolen. Unlawful * Date of Death deceit

CD

QUESTION 2

Program Fraud 18 U.S.C. 666 statute is to protect

the integrity of vast sums of money distributed

via Federal Programs. With eyes wide open,

Ramona Elliot was appointed to oversee the effort

as U.S. Trustee Program executive. Resolutely,

Congressional oversight involving U.S. House of

Representatives were also designated as an

additional safeguard. Nevertheless, Brayton and

Purcell have been noted for utilizing politicians

in an effort to cover-up their criminal activities.

See Exhibit 4 (Tab 10) and Exhibit 8.

As seen in Secret Ghostly Trial(s) #5, #9,

#11, and #12... Allis-Chalmers Product Liability

Trust (524(g) defendant settlements were stolen.

See Exhibit3 re-instated FCS 10 345910 case

(or fraudulent case number used by attorney’s

BC245910 Grp 879 & 881) and then stolen.

See Exhibit E, Exhibit 3, and Preface p. 2.

Exhibit 1, p. 175 shows demand for $12,560,000

in punitive damages, pain-suffering, and loss-ofconsortium etc. + $1,049,995 in compensatory

damages... Next, (Preface Exhibit p. 16) coordinated

trial Feb 23, 2009 with M.Pascale’s work partner

(BC373142). Noteworthy: Allis Chalmers

Corporation Product Liability Trust (no hyphen as

alternate entity). See Exhibit 10, p.60 #19. Anew,

June-July 10, 2009 trial for fraudulent stomach

causation (BC345910) jury trial. Releases forged,

settlement stolen. Recurrently, WD case BC500626.

As seen in Exhibit 10, the theft of Federal 524(g)

doesn’t end here. With malice aforethought, it also

involves multiple Asbestos Trust. The Pascale’s have

received 33 personal injury settlements. See Acct.

Fraud Exhibit M. The only wrongful death payment

(II)

QUESTION 2

entangles a Thorpe Insulation alternate entity with

(Preface p. 31) $174,087 stolen by way of accounting

fraud. To this end, the Family filed over 100 WD

claims after Brayton Purcell communicated that they

no longer represented the Family (Exhibit 0, p. 7c)

(BP sending letters to all 9 major asbestos trust) yet

the asbestos trust won’t pay the Pascale’s.

Instead, they are paying BP and Waters & Judge

Krause firm as seen in Exhibit 10, p. 25*26.

Other violations to 18 U.S.C. 666 involve theft

of Air Force (Exhibit G, Tab A p.2 / Exhibit 0, p, lh)

ADR, Marine, Navy shipyards, and VA Hospital. All of

which include punitive damages + tax evasion.

Conjointly, Gov. Instrument of Debt associated with

Thorpe Insulation Company A Corp, Ind Furnaces Inc,

Commercial Insulation Co (former employers) +

alternate entities... (2:07-bk-1927TBB administered

with 2:07-20016-BB) was escrowed via Bank of NY

Mellon. See Exhibit 5. The contract was placed

under Verus LLC - Thornton / Thornton Grant

(accounting) but laundered by way of Allan Brayton

and Waters & Judge Krause Firm i.e. The Reno Group.

The Federal Gov. contract references Secret Trials

in Nov 2005 (see Exhibit 11, p. 4i) 2006 (Exhibit 3)

Exhibit 5 / Document p.100, TAC Theft Advisory

Committee Exhibit 5, p.43*44 of said Document

(Doc p.5‘6 of 17 pages) are those attorneys stealing

Pascale settlements, p. 9 of 17 references alt. entities

and pre-petition claims, March-Aug 2007 secret trials

Exhibit 11, FCS 10 345910 Exhibit 12 and 12b... See

Thorpe-Western-Plant. Collectively, Punitive damages

and corresponding taxes from stolen settlements are

outstanding. Also, see Ex. 0, p. 9b2 300 defendants

with punitive damages.

(Ill)

Question 2 & 3 presented

Preface p. 16, Exhibit 00 / A,B, J, Ex. F p. 1-14, Ex. 1,

p. 69, 172-175, 217-230, Ex. 12, p. 19, Ex. M, p. 46,

Tab A, 89-91, 96-100, 127.

The question presented is as followsWith violation(s) to Federal Statutes (18 U.S.C.

666) coupled with infringements to the Pascale’s

constitutional rights (namely Amendment 1, 4, 7, and

14) i.e. presenting “extensive extrinsic fraud”... did

Judge Cunningham have purpose for his Aug 3,

2021 ruling as seen by his “willful” closure of

discovery on July 20, 2020 together with concealment

of all plaintiffs’ case information prior to Aug 3, 2020.

See Ex. 0, p. 6-7, 11, 16, Ex. 1, p. 62, p. 138.

Is there a correlation between the controversial

decision trick used on 11/20/2009 “Court-Ordered

Dismissal Before Trial / Lack of Prosecution” 583.310

(see Preface p. 3 and 5 - prior to an additional SF trial

Aug 2010 & LA trial Sep 2020 Ex.3, p. lm), and that

usage Aug 3, 2021? IRS U.S. Code 7201, 440, 72011-1

-1.01, 781 / 479 U.S. 882 498 U.S. 192 / 201...

Exhibit 0, p. 20 4(a)4, p. 10, Tab E.

Question 3

In view of fraudulent PI case (stomach) BC345910,

the Family received 16 unlawful medical damage

settlements, 4 Econ Loss & 1 compensatory damage.

These felonious monies ought to be returned. The

Pascale’s have asked for assistance from Brayton

Law / Waters & Krause counsel. There have been NO

replies. Based on civil action for Deprivation of

Rights? specifically, Amendment 7... do the Pascale’s

have a right to case re*instatement (time zero) of

both C484161 /FCS 10 345910 (lungs) as well as WD

BC 5006269 (stomach). Both cases were sneakily

ran-off with. All trials concealed and looting of

all settlements thereof. A first in U.S. history.

(IV)

Question 4 & 5 Presented

Brayton Law and Waters & Judge Krause lied about

the dates of death for both Michael Pascale as well

as Robert Austin (BC380390). Presumptively, last

improper coordinated PI trial was on June 6, 2011.

See Ex. 0, p. 22 o and u. Nonetheless, as seen in the

Preface p. 19, 25, 27 - 28 (line 17)... DoD was illegaly

stated as 2010 (for bankruptcy case 2^07-bk-19271-BB)

or 1 year prior to formal WD (Ex. 1, p. 105) filing

Feb 2013. See Ex. 9. Underlying reason- premise(s)

fraud as seen on p. 22, line 3 lie (see Preface p. 14

lower right corner) 4,000 - 5,500 thefts (see Ex.0, p.

lh) across 2 unlawful PI causation cases; thereby

max embezzlement prior to pursuing WD case.

BC500626 was completely concealed from the

Pascale’s. See Preface p. 21. Hence, WD SOL were

violated due to this unlawful interference. How can

the Family’s constitutional rights be restored as

these SOL crimes were perpetuately concealed.

Question 5

Given * outright perjury by Waters & Judge Krause

firm (as seen in Exhibit C)... the hearing held Novi,

2007 resulted in a back chambers meeting with

Judge Sohigian. Undoubtedly, the effort of Judge

Krause’s firm ultimately was for the purposes of

denying the Pascale’s a trial (like BC393210) and

to continue its’ unjustly prosecution into 2008

(despite being fired in 2007). See Ex. 6. Conclusively,

this led to collusion between Judge Krause firm &

Judge Sohigian as seen in Exhibit D when viewed

with Brayton Law attorney (OrenNoah) notes. See

Preface p.14. Collectively, Judge Sohigian’s facilitation

Judge Krause firm - yielded countless $M’s in

embezzlements. Does Federal law Section 241 / 242

combined with 18 U.S.C. 25, 242, 1031 void all

judicial proceedings?

(V)

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

The petitioner is the Pascale Family.

Respondents are RPI Company, and

Johns'Manville Sales Corporation.

(VI)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

Opinions below............................

1

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

3

Jurisdiction.................................

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved.... 4

5

Statement

28

Reasons for granting the petition.......................

A. The circuit and Case Judge are in

acknowledged conflict over the correct

Appendix.A, App. C, 8, 14,

appeal analysis

.................. 23, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

B. The question presented is of

8, 18, 28

exceptional importance............... .

C. The Court of appeals’ decision is

incorrect....................................... 18, 34, 35, 37

D. This case is a superior vehicle for

addressing the question presented.... 5, 18, 28

38

Conclusion.

Appendix A ■ Court Order & Opinion (B314756)...... A

Aug 3, 2021 Dismissal Hearing Transcript..Al

Appendix B * CA Supreme Court (Mar. 16, 2022)....B1

Appendix C - CA District Court Order & Opinion....Cl

Appendix D - BC345910 Personal Injury (PI) Case

Dismissed for Lack of Prosecution Before

,D1

Trial.

(VII)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix E - PI Judge Calls Out Fraud for Not

Telling Plaintiffs About Trial due

to Oppression and Malice +

Appellate Court................................ El

Appendix F - Denton’s / McKenna Long’s Scheme

Plaintiff Prevented From Depo......... FI

Appendix G - LA & SF Mission Statements........... Gl

Appendix H - Secret Trial #3 Notice to Plaintiffs

Tb Appear at Trial............................. Hi

Appendix I - Secret Trial(s) Callouts..................... II

Appendix J - Other Including Constitutional

Amendment 5, 42 U.S. Code 1983

Section 241 & 242 of Title 18,

Interference Penal Code 503, 470,

487(a), 12022.6(a), Civil Action [3071062.20]............................................. .J1

Appendix K * Order & Opinion Judge H. Hanna

LoriUard / Celotex / Johns-Manville

Trust (CV 442750)........................... K1

Exhibits & Diagrams

O, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12(b),

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O,

P, Q / Court Case archival documentation

Exhibit(s)| Table of Contents isee

Preface (Ghost Trials)

(vm)

'■ ••

• •• •

V‘,v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Jack Kananian v. Lorillard Tobacco Company,

Order & Opinion, CV 442750, Cuyahoga, OH,

Jan 18, 2007, [Brayton - Counsel]

5, 13, 26, 38

Sherwood v. Sutton, 21 F. Cas. 1303 (C.C.D.N.

H. 1828).................................................................... 6

People v. Wooten, 44 CaLApp. 4th 1834, 1842 [52

Cal.Rptr.2d 765] (1996).

9, 20, 25

People v. Gentry, 234 CaLApp.3d 131, 139 [285

Cal.Rptr.591], (1991)............................................... 9

People v. Schmitt, 155 Cal.App.2d 87, 110 [317

P.2D 673], (1957)...................................................... 9

People v. Ryan, 103 Cal.App.3d 454, 470-471 [117

Cal.Rptr. 757], (1951).........................................

10

People v. Mace, 71 CaLApp. 10, 21 [234 p.841],

(1925).....................................................................

10

People v. Randono, 32 CaLApp.3d 164, 174-175

[108 Cal.Rptr.326], (1973)..................................

10

People v. Fujita, 43 CaLApp.3d 454, 470 [117

Cal.Rptr. 757], (1974)...... ...................................

14

People v. Wymer, 53 CaLApp. 204, 206 [199

p. 815], 1921.........................................................

14

People v. Ashley, 42 Cal.2d. 246, 259-265 [267

P.2d 271], (1954)..................................................

20

Bollinger v. Avery, 27 Cal.4th 49, 57-58 [115

Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1, (2002)

24, 31

(IX)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Continued-

Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp. (1997-1704) 527 U.S.

815 134 F.3d 668, (1999)........................................... 25

W.Dist. Co. v. Diodosio, 841 P2d 1053....................... 25

Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v. Marsick (1998) 81 Ohio St.

3rd 551......................................................................... 29

Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1991) 74 Ohio St. 3rd 187,

658 N.E.2d 237........................................................... 31

Sherman v. Std. Mines (1913) 166 Cal.524, 525...... 37

Appendix C6

U.S. vs Simpson (9th Circuit 1972) 460 F.2d 515,

35

518

Kevin Rotkiske v. Paul Klemm, No. 18-328,

p. 22, Brief of Amici Curiae.............................. XIII

Irwin v. Dept, of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89,

96, (1990)............................................................ .XIII

Sullivan, supra, 256 Cal.App.2d 304................. .XIII

cx)

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

Federal Section 241, 242 of Title 18

V, 6, 7, 16

18 U.S.C. 25, 1031..............................

.V

42 U.S. Code 1983..............................

6,7

Fed Civil Rule 163B(iii), Rule 26(a) & 26(e)(1), iii......

............................................................... Appendix A 32

Fed Rule of Evidence 502, 18 U.S.C. 2017, 18 U.S.C.

1361, 641, 2071, CCP 128(a)(8), 86(b)(3)

.............................................................. Appendix A 14

U.S. Code 7201, 440, 72011-1-1.01, 781, 479 U.S. 882

498 U.S. 192, 201........................................................ IV

18 U.S.C. Section 371, 487(a), Penal Code 503, 470,

487(a), 12022.6(a)(2)............................................. 7, 10

U.S. Constitution Section 16 - 13 - 230 / 240....

9

Penal Code 484, 532(b)......................................... 14, 17

18 U.S. Code 1519, 7 U.S. Code 9, 18 USC 641,

18 U.S.C. 1361, 18 U.S.C., 18 U.S.C. 2071(a)

18 U.S.C. 371, 487(a), Penal Code 503, 470, 487(a)

12022.6(a)(2)....................................

10, 19, 24, 29

18 U.S.C. Section 242, 666, 201.......

11

386 U.S. 547, 568, 18 U.S.C. 91-452

11

18 U.S.C. Crimes & Criminal Public Law 91-452. 12

California Constitution Rule 16.............................. 12

26 U.S. Code 7201, IRS 440, 72011-1-1.01, 781,

479 U.S. 882, 498 U.S. 192, 201, 18 U.S.C. 641,

1361, 2071, PC 503, 1804, 514.040, 484,

216 N.E.2d 154, NRS 205.305...............

14

ABA Model 1.5; (4), (8)b,c, 5 U.S.C. 7311....

15, 17

18 U.S.C. 371, Fed 524(g), 26 U.S.C. 7201,

18 U.S.C. 470, 471, 5 U.S. Code 554, 8 U.S. Code

1324c, 337 U.S. 168-171/193-194..................... 24

18 U.S.C. 1361, 1666, 2071.................................. 29

(XI)

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

18 U.S.C. 371, 241, 242, 18 U.S.C. 201, 666,

503 PC, 514.040, 18 U.S.C. 25, 471-509, 495,

42 U.S.C. 1983, 1804.....................................

1663 Protection of Court Records, 18 U.S.C. 641,

1361, 2071....................................................

28 U.S.C. 157, 1334, 28 U.S.C. 157(B)(2),

28 U.S.C. 1408, 1409

Bankruptcy See Pascale 2W-bk-19271-BB

administered with 2W20016-BB

359 Insurance Code 496 (a,b,c), Calcrhn No.1750,

3294 Part 2 / Title 2

41 U.S. 6503, Breach of Trust Code 16-13-230

Section 17200

Breach of Fudiciary Duty 29 U.S. Code 1109

CCP Part 2 Title 4-5, 410.50 Stats. 1969 Ch. 1610,

Coordination of Civil Action [392-404.9]

CCP 128(a)(8), 86(b)(3), 42 U.S.C. 1983

Proper Service 473.5 Civil Code

(XII)

34

35

STATUTES AND REGULATION - Continued:

Miscellaneous

Kevin Rotkiske v. Paul Klemm No. 18*328 p. 22.

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

Irwin v. Dept, of Veterans Affairs,

498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990)

RPI Company - Statutory Period from 18 Jul 2019

Other Wrongful Death Def - Aug 3, 2021

FCS10 345910 / BC345910 PI / C484162 - Feb 2019

Bankruptcy Rule 9019 * reasonable equivalence

877.6 CA Civil Code * Bad Faith Settlements

Section 16*13*230 Breach of Trust with Fraudulent

intent, (a) A person committing a breach of trust

with a fraudulent intention is guilty of larceny.

Section 16*13*240 Obtaining signature or property

by false pretenses. 1804 Embezzlement 503PC.

The court may set aside a judgement at anytime using

its equitable powers CCP 128(A)(8), 86(B)(3) when

a judgement is entered based on extrinsic fraud.

Theft by Deception 514.040

External Circumstances depriving a party of a trial,

a fair trial, such as the other party filing a false

proof of service. Sullivan, supra, 256 CalApp.2d 304.

Bus. & Prof. Code Section 6076 does not permit denying

plaintiffs from their trial, concealment, fraud etc. [1911

C&P 388; RL 6653; NCL 10340 (NRS A 1985, 978)

NRS 205.305 Prima facie evidence of embezzlement.

Waters & Judge Krause - Seattle eavesdropping lawyer

steals 7 (PI Case Fraud) settlements with unlawful

jurisdiction (329014) in TX to forgo trials against def.

Exhibits: 1 * 12b, A * Q / Provided to U.S. Supreme Court

Trial Call-Outs / See Exhibit Tabs & Exhibit. 3_____

XIII

No.

In The

jiuprcmc fflmtrt af ttje MniUb

Patricia Pascale et al.

Petitioner,

v.

Rpi Company et al.

JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, et al.

Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

The Pascale Family (Patricia Pascale et al.),

respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari

to review the judgement of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in

this case.

OPINIONS BELOW

Appendix A - Court Order and Opinion Aug 3, 2021.

Appendix C - CA District Court Order and Opinion.

Appendix K - Order & Opinion Judge Harry Hanna.

(1)

Opinion/Hearing Aug. 3, 2021 - Appendix A

Order & Opinion / CA District Court Dec 15, 2021 Appendix C

Order & Opinion / OH Case No. CV 442750 Jan. 18,

2007 Brayton Purcell, Celotex, Lorillard,

Johns-Manville See Exhibit A. p. A, B, C

and Lies Upon Lies - (article) p. 20.

Brayton Purcell & partner Christopher Andreas

barred from practicing law in Cuyahoga

County, Ohio.

Appendix K

Christopher Andreas mis-representation (never

retained and Pascale’s do not know

who he is) of the Family and in

doing so stealing Western MacArthur

Company (Doe 43), Western Asbestos Co.,

Western Asbestos Company, MacArthur

Company, Bay Cities Asbestos Co, Bay Cities

Asbestos Company, F.K. Pinney, Inc., and

Maearthur Company (Doe 29), Exhibit A

(last 6 pages).

Brayton Purcell + Waters & Judge Krause

collectively embezzle Lorillard, Celotex,

Johns-Manville Sales Corporation & HQ.

(2)

JURISDICTION

The date on which the highest state court decided

my case was March 16, 2022.

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix Bl.

A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter

denied on the following date: March 18, 2022 and

a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at

Appendix A

The date L.A Superior Court Judge (Cunningham)

approved an appeal to a higher court was Aug 3,

2021 and can be seen on A13.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under

28 U.S.C. 1257(a)

Of note 34rrnn and 45sec.

Steven Pascale asks, “will you be putting in some

document that states your pulling the plug on our

case BC500626 and the reasons why so that we

(Pascale Family) can take it to the higher court for

appeal. » 2, 3

1 Judge: “Sure, here is what I will do... the court is

adopting its’ tentative with respect to the court of appeal

cause... the court is dismissing the case; thus, Pascale matter

BC500626 for failure to prosecute pursuant to code of civil

procedure 583.310 and notes that the matter was filed on Feb 7,

2013. As of Junel8, 2021... the Court has not received any duly

served filed explanation, declaration, or anything that

establishes the basis for tolling.” See Exhibit H

(3)

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Constitution

1st Amendment.

6, 10, 16, 18, 27, 31

4th Amendment (Seizure by Roger Worthington Law /

Brayton Purcell attorney Eric Solomon)

15, 18

see Exhibit 8 & L, “Offco” cited from W Journals

7th Amendment...

7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 30, 34

14th Amendment

................... 7, 10, 15, 16, 34

Statutory Provisions

18 U.S.C. 641, Crimes Act of 1790

10, 14, 35

Circumstance depriving a party of trialMarriage of Park (1980) 27 Cal.3d 337, 342

Sullivan, supra, 256 Cal.App.2d 304.

3 Steven Pascale' “if you find out about fraud lets say in the

case of the Pascale’s and Robert Austin case where Brayton

Purcell is stating that Michael Pascale died 5 years after actual

death and Robert Austin 3 years after actual in order to pursue

other personal injury causes of action, utterly on fraud and

deception, what occurs in that situation? Appendix A13, A14

CCP 128(a)(8), 86(b)(3)

(4)

STATEMENT

If there has ever been a time to address a

paramount issue as this, now is that censorious

time. The U.S. Supreme Court must consider this

case as it is of national importance and a perfect

vehicle... warranting the creation of a new statute.

“Judge Hanna's ruling in Kananian received

national attention for exposing one of the darker

corners of tort abuse.” Editorial Comeuppance,

Wall Street Journal, Jan 22, 2007, at A14.

Cleveland Judge Harry Hanna barred Bravton

Purcell from his court after he found that the

firm and partner Chris Andreas failed to abide

by the rules of the court proscribing dishonesty,

fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. See Ohio

Judge Bars CA Firm from His Court, Nat’l L.J.,

Jan 22, 2007, at 3; Thomas J. Steeran.

“In my 45 years of practicing law, I never

expected to see Lawyers he like this.” Judge Hanna

added, “it was lies upon lies.” Ohio Judge bans CA

lawyer in Asbestos Lawsuit, Cincinati Post, Feb 20,

2007. Appendix p. A3. “Judge Becomes National

Legal Star, Bars Brayton Purcell from Court

Over Deceit,” Cleveland Plain Dealer, Jan 25, 2007,

25, 2007, James F. McCarty. Appendix Bl.

“State AGs Urge DOJ to Act.” Defense Counsel

Journal, Jan 2019, M. Behrens & W. Northrip.

Precedence Given- Case C484162 was purlioned

(1984-2004) i.e. every settlement embezzled and

every trial concealed. Re-instated for this reason

by SF Court of Appeal (illegal jurisdiction) due to

oppression and malice... then stolen all over again.

(5)

An individual asbestos case is a tort case, of a

kind that courts, not legislatures, ordinarily will

resolve. It is the number of these cases, not their

nature, that creates the special judicial problem.

The judiciary cannot treat the problem as entirely

one of legislative failure, as if it were caused, say,

by a poorly drafted statute. Thus, when “calls for

national legislation” go unanswered, ante, at 1,

judges can and should search aggressively for ways,

within the framework of existing law, to avoid

delay and expense so great as to bring about a

massive denial of justice.”

“It was Justice Story who first thoroughly

explored the issue, in a case involving a

defendant who had defrauded the plaintiff in the

sale of a ship. Sherwood v. Sutton, 21 F. Cas. 1303,

1303 (C.C.D.N.H. 1828).

In light of Brayton Purcell and Waters & Judge

Krause firm(s), safeguards to prevent asbestos

fraud, abuse or mismanagement... and to ensure

that the interest of the U.S. will be protected...

transparency and proper case administration is a

growing national issue. Coordinated case(s) namely

mandate “only defaults” to be filed and nothing

more. Notably, maintaining flagrant, unbridled,

and rampant fraud per the “Status Quo” in asbestos

litigation are now violating plaintiffs' civil rights

including right to trial, right to free speech, and

right to due process. Specifically, 42 U.S. Code 1983

addresses civil action for deprivation of such rights.

Reform may indeed be the order of the day. In

lawful cases (C484162 / FCS 10 345910) plaintiffs

right to free speech via deposition and trial testimony

were denied... thereby violating their 1st amendment.

(6)

1. Under Federal Statute 18 U.S.C. Section

371, concealment 487(a), and Penal Code 503,

470, 487(a), 12022.6(a)(2)... case C484162 is / was

infected with fraud, racketeering, and theft x 2.

C484162 was re-packaged into FCS 10 345910 and

re-instated as seen in the exhibits and noted in

court records. See BC245910 Cental Grp 879 & 881.

See ExhibitE (illegal case No.) / Preface Ex. p. 16-18.

Once again, every trial across lawful PI & WD

cases i.e. C484162 and BC500626 have been denied

and settlements misappropriated (FCS 10 345910)

thought to still be active / concealed as a “Long

Cause Case - JCCP 4674” in an unlawful

jurisdiction (SF) with 50,000 defendants.

See Preface p. 29, p.30, Exhibit 8, p.14.

2. BC500626 Wrongful Death was filed Aug

2011 (see exhibit 1, p.21; preface p. 24, 26, 27 (#5.

“within 1 year of filing complaint” i.e. Feb 2013)), prior

to forgeries and WD settlement judgements Oct Dec 2010 (2:007-bk-19271 see Exhibit p. 2, Exhibit 5)

by the “Heirs at Law” (Exhibit p. 26, 27) and was

concealed as seen in email Preface Exhibit

p. 20 - 23. Brayton Purcell states in the email:

“There is no open case in the court system. You

and Your Family need to move on as we

no longer represent you.”

3. In short, despite the 7th & 14th

Amendments; 18 U.S.C. Section 241, 242 coupled

with 42 U.S. 1983 deprivation of rights... there are

no Federal or State statutes that prohibits officers

of the court and / or gov officials from stealing

and ransacking a plaintiffs case, pilfering

settlements, forgering releases, and diverting

trials covertly.

(7)

This case presents a conflict of extraordinary

constitutional importance that has divided CA

(presiding) Judge... “adopting its tentative dismissal

cause with respect to the court of appeals.”

CCP 583.310 See Ex. Preface p. 3 and 5.

This was followed by the 2nd Appellate Court

stating that “This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear

an appeal taken from a nonappealable order” The

CA Supreme Court appeal * dismissal came with

no explanation. Appendix B & Exhibit 0 p. 26b.

However, the CA Supreme Court did grant

permission to "file a petition in excess of 8,400

words.” Even more important is the fact that...

the executive officer cc was Douglas Wah. In all

probability... it’s fair to say that Mr. Wah now

works for the 2nd Appellate Court of Appeals! hence,

a justified notification. Ironically, Doug Wah also

was the lead attorney for Foley Mansfield who first

bought into the conspiracy plan presented by BP

(L.Nixt deposition #5 p. 1024) and second facilitated

the theft of several Pascale settlements (L.Nixt 1-9

Depositions) including the RPI Company ADR and

embezzlement. But that’s not all, it’s clear that under

his direction, governmental discrimination transpired...

as all documents requested in the appeal (see Ex. 00

Tab 7) were never provided. Not one. Preface p. 33.

Advocacy include (s): Judge Munoz, Judge Sharon

Armstrong, Judge Harry Hanna, Judge Thomas

Home, Delaware Superior Court Judge Peggy

Ableman, Judge George Hodges, and several others.

As the guardian of our legal system... a national

answer to the federal issues at hand are vital to

(8)

preserving our U.S. Constitution. NoteworthySection 16- 13-230/240.

(1) Pascale’s Personal Injury Case (1984 2004) prosecuted by a law firm whereby every

defendant settlement looted and trials revoked.

See Exhibit 1 TabA2. Case C484162 Exhibit 4

Tab 22 p. 77. Nonetheless, what Mr. & Mrs. Pascale

were concessioned with pertained to a Workmans

Comp claim 94LBO 0255268. Consequently, all

C484162 releases were forged (then and again now).

Penal Code 484 People v. Wooten (1996) 44 Cal.App.

4th 1834, 1842 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 765]

(2) When Waters & Judge Krause firm

unlawfully filed the Pascale case Jan 2006 (they

were not retained) and they filed Personal Injury

causation (stomach / peritoneal meso) fraudulently

for stomach as well as colon (TX) as Mr. Pascale

had the prior year i.e. Sep 2005. See Penal Code

532(b) People v. Gentry (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 131,

139 [285 Cal.Rptr.59l], People v. Schmitt (1957) 155

Cal.App.2d 87, 110 [317 P.2D 673).

(3). In doing so, Waters & Judge Krause firm

also came across PI case C484162 from 1984-1998.

W&K took the initiative to undisclose the

accoutrement appeal. The SF re-instatment for

“lungs” “pleural” can be seen in the preface,

pages 17-19 and noted in Secret Trial #11 by

Judge Sohigian Exhibit Preface p. 8-9. The drapery

used (Exhibit E) was by way of utilizing a

fraudulent case number BC #245910 as well as

Central Court Grp 879 and 881. Some of the ghostly

(9)

measure) plus ADR’s associated C484162 / FCS 10

BC345910 and BC500626 are now known and

delineated in Exhibit preface p. 7 as well as

Exhibit E Tab 12 and Tab 78. Also noted in email

Exhibit 1 p. 144, Tab 73 p. 168-175. 10 “Heirs at

Law” See preface last p. 26*27. See People v. Ryan

(1951) 103 Cal.App.3d 454, 470-471 [117 Cal.Rptr. 757].

As seen in Exhibit Preface p. 29-30, there are

50,000 defendants in each causation / long-cause

case when factoring in the concept of alternate

entities. See Preface and/or Exhibit 1, Tab A3.

See People v. Mace (1925) 71 Cal.App. 10, 21 [234 p.

841]. Furthermore, the deprivation of Rights lends

itself to the law of implied contracts. See People v.

Randono (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 164, 174-175 [108

Cal.Rptr.326]. Together, prosecutional manipulation

and misuse of process considers: 18 U.S. Code 1519,

7 U.S. Code 9, 18 USC 641, 18 USC 1361, 18 USC

2071 (a), Exhibit 1 p.12-16, Exhibit B B95-97,

B109-112. 18 USC Section 371, Concealment 487(a),

and Penal Code 503, 470, 487(a), 12022.6(a)(2).

U.S. Constitution; specifically, 1st Amendment,

7th Amendment, and 14th Amendment preempt

state tort suits?

More remarkably, Waters & Judge Krause firm

conducted multiple (secret) trials. Exhibit 1,

p. 120. See Exhibit 11 for W&K fraudulent PI

case i.e. Peritoneal (stomach) Mesothelioma.

Given this fraud, theft, and misrepresentation did

Denton’s and DeHay & Elliston have the right

along with Waters & Judge Krause firm to remove

(10)

Judge Munoz and Mackey with peremptory

challenges? See Exhibit 11, p. 4e - 4j.

The fraudulent breakdown of additional

communications included perjury. See Exhibit C

Tab A. Firing W&K and R. Worthington occurred

several times between Aug 16, 2007 and Sep 25.

Subsequently, this led to a Hearing on Nov 1, 2007.

Afterwards, a backchambers meeting with W&K

materialized. Following, in 2008... Judge Sohigian

can be seen facilitating the theft several defendant

settlements on behalf of Waters &. Krause. See

Exhibit D as well as Exhibit 1 Tab A, Exhibit 11 Tab

19. See Federal Official Bribery 18 U.S.C. Section

242,666 and Section 201. Title 18 U.S.C

Section 242 states (inpart) under Federal Law,

when any officer of the court has committed

fraud, all orders and judgements of that Court

are Void.4- 6

4«

Fraudulent documents or perjury... it is where the court or a

member is corrupted or where the judge has not performed his

judicial function”

5 “Upon the Court, is where the judge (who is not the Court) does

not support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court....

that is, the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Criminal Procedure

and the Rules of Evidence, all which is overseen by Constitutional

Law.”

6 “When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a

person of his constitutional rights, he exercises no discretion or

individual judgement- he acts not longer as a judge, but as a

minister of his own prejudices.” [386 U.S. 547, 568]

(11)

As inconceivable as this genuine conflict is;

eventually, the Pascale’s hired Brayton Purcell

(Hugh Cook BP / sibbling Paul Cook from W&K

See Exhibit 12 p. 262-264 where the 2 brothers are

showing collusion in their embezzlement efforts.

At that point in time, Pascale Family knew nothing

about the Brayton Law Firm).

Meanwhile, the Pascale’s hired an additional law

firm. See Exhibit 6 / Adorno Yoss Alvarado & Smith

in order to sue Waters & Judge Krause.

Unmistakenly, W&K, had AYAS law firm and 2

of its’ attorney’s (Joe Collins and Patrick Cathcart)

neferiously dismiss the case purposely (BC393210).

See Exhibit 6. “Willful Violations of multiple court

orders.”

The reward for denying the Pascale Family a

trial (again)... Judge Krause utilized a close

working relationship with well known government

official. The outcome: attorney’s representing the

Pascale’s who did the dirty was Patrick Cathcart

(elevated to a CA Judge 3 months) and Joseph

Collins (receiving a monetary kickback in the form

of a Pascale settlement). The 2 attorneys worked

for Adorno Yoss (seen Exhibit 6 p.2-3). The leverage

Adorno Yoss Alvardo Smith had on Waters & Judge

Krause / BP was quite simple, the Brayton Purcell

assistant accidently sent settlement info that showed

embezzlements in excess of $12.5m. Exhibit 6 p.8-10.

See. 18 U.S.C. Crimes and Criminal Public Law

91-452. There is a well*recognied and entreched

conflict between Court Officers oath (See Appendix

Kl) CA Constitution Rule 16... trial by jury is an

inviolate right.

(12)

Judge Harry Hanna (Cleveland) barred Bravton

Purcell (+' partner C. Andreas) plaintiff firm

from his court after he found that the firm

failed to abide by the rules of the court

proscribing dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and

misrepresentation. See Ohio Judge Bars Calif.

Firm from His Court, Natl L.J., Jan 22, 2007, at

3; Thomas J. Sheeran, Ohio Judge Bans Calif.

Lawyer in Asbestos Lawsuit, Cincinati Post,

Feb. 20, 2007, at A3.

The Wall Street Journal editorialized that

Judge Hanna‘s opinion should be required

reading for other judges to assist in providing

more scrutiny of rampant fraud. Cuyahoga

Comeuppance, supra, atA14.

What isn’t well known is the fact that punitive

damages and associated taxes therein are being

stolen. Exhibit 1 Tab 14 shows 300 defendants

each with punitive damages. Furthermore, the

identified DOE’s have several “alternate entities”

each equally liable. With regard to BC500626,

all defendant and alternate entity settlements

have been concealed and embezzled.

Hence, Federal monies associated with punitive

damages have been stolen which includes those

associated with Bankruptcy Court Case 2*07-bk19271*BB as well as Allis'Chalmers Prd Lia Trust.

Not surprisingly, federal tax statute of limitation

is “none.” Consequently, a11 defendant settlements

with punitive damages are in play due to

“The People's Money” being stolen.

(13)

Civil criminal tax fraud is covered under 26 U.S.C.

6531, IRS US Code 7201, IRS 440, IRS 7201M-1.01,

781, 479U.S. 882, 498U.S. 192 and 201. The

consequences of embezzling punitive tax dollars

are well understood. Enforcement and collection

of “The People’s Money” that have been pinched +

laundered in the Pascale cases might well be a

different matter. 18 U.S.C. 641, 1361 & 2071.

Tb a greater extent, percolation in the lower

courts is unnecessary i.e. between presiding Judge(s)

and the 2nd District Court of Appeals, For example,

in one instance, the conflict is already clear cut and

the Courts that already comprise the conflict cover

a large portion of the affected actors (barring 3

other States that Mr. Pascale worked in • infn

about AZ, PA, and NV are still unknown). For this

reason, Emily Stout (W&K), Oakfabco attorney’s

(see letter submitted to Judge Sohigian), Oren Noah

(BP), Ms. Flynn & Ms. Ahshetabi (Foster Wheeler),

Tiffany Birkett (Adorno Yoss Alvarado Smith), and

Denise Phillips (W&K), Judge Munoz, Judge Hanna,

etc... will testify to the past injustices that has

transpired. See People v. Fujita (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d

454, 470 [117 CaLRptr. 757] and People v. Wymer

(1921) 53 CaLApp. 204, 206 [199 p. 815] where

corroborating evidence is sufficient if it tends to

connect the defendants) with the commission of

the crimes.

Relatedly, embezzlement 503PC by False Pretense

1804 and by deception 514.040 Penal Code 484,

Grand Theft & Fraud 216N.E.2d 154, and NRS

205.305 apply. Another example relates to loss of

(14)

consortium. Embodied in Exhibit 7 p.2 Tab 1,

a directive to steal the Pascale Family’s LOC was

given (R. Worthington). ‘The CA Supreme Court in

Rodriguez, supra, 12 Cal.3dp. 409 expressly

recognized the right to recover damages for the

loss of impairment’ of the plaintiffs right of

consortium. On p. 5 Tab 2, the Pascale’s attorney

states' “They are a close family and each has

suffered LOC.” And, as an after thought... Exhibit F

also shows examples of Medical Damages stolen.

The major point of connivance here is even more

significant in whole (secret trials) for ease of theft.

Information abuse see ABAModel 1.5; (4), (8)b,c.

The outcome alters the plaintiffs 4th, 7th, and 14th

amendment, resulting in 5 U.S.C. 7311 “the alteration

of the gov of the U.S. by unconstitutional means.

Apurpose, financial consideration depicts in Exhibit

10, p. 1 what the Pascale’s actually received i.e.

I. Texas personal injuiy lawsuit (colon - 329014)

only entails 3 lawful settlements less loss-ofconsortium, pain and suffering and punitive

(en massed/ swiped). These include^ 01, WH,

compensatory settlements prior to death

and GE Company. All other settlements

for this causation is fraudulent and handled

by W&K + Quilling Selandar (Dallas).

Obtaining other info has yielded no results.

II. C484162 / FCS 10 345910 / BC245910

Grp 879 and 881 (fraudulent case number)

causation lungs (asbestosis ■ pleural) every

settlement has been looted, trials concealed.

(15)

III. Personal Injury stomach (Peritoneal Meso)

is completely fraudulent by means of

altering Date-of-Death from Sep 2005 to

Sep 2010. Pascale Family received 10

medical damage settlements only from

Waters & Judge Krause firm based on

information shown in Exhibit 7 and F.

In the 2nd half of this fraudulent case

filed illegally Jan 2006, Brayton Purcell

gave the Pascale Family 1 Compensatory

damages, 6 medical damage(s), and 4 econ

loss. Together, 21 of 24 payments needs to

be return as they are based on fraud.

This request was echoed to W&K and

Brayton Purcell LLC counsel return these

swiped settlements July 20 & August 9, 2020.

IV. Wrongful Death BC500626 was camouflaged

and all coordinated trials and settlements

have been lifted. To solidify this point

see Exhibit 4 Tab A And, awareness

given to Exhibit 10 Preface next to last

page... RPI Company & Bayside Insulation and

Construction, Inc. were dismissed April 2015.

Settlements again were snatched and disguised

as Plant Insulation Asbestos Trust (Verus LLC/

Thornton). See Exhibit A, Tab A. Critically

relevant is the feet that the Pascale Family

doesn’t want an “Alternative Dispute

Resolution” / settlements for BC500626 WD RPI Company; they would prefer their

Constitutional Right to Trial. These violations

to their 1st, 7th, and 14th Amendment are

referenced as 18 U.S.C. Section 241 Conspiracy

(16)

Against Rights, Breach of Trust with

Fraudulent intent and / or larceny 877.6 CA

Civil Code, Info Abuse ABA Model 1.5,

Penal Code 484 / Criminal Law 1804 Grand

Theft CalCRIM No. 1801 Section 1170(h),

Code of Civil Procedures Part 2 [307-1062.20].

Malice see Munoz v. Lopez (1969) 275 Cal.

App.2d 178, 183. 18 U.S.C. 201 See “Heirs

at Law.” See Appendix M, Tab A, B.

Causation Actuals: [Personal Injury (PI) /[Preface p.16

Asbestosis lungs (non-malignant) diagnosis late 1983

Complaint filed 1984 Exhibit 4, Tab 22, p.77

Colon (malign) diagnosis May 13, 2005, Preface p.19

Stomach (malignant) diagnosis May 13, 2005

[Wrongful Death Stomach^ See Exhibit 1, TabA4

Stomach (peritoneal mesothelioma) Sep 20, 2005

Complaint - Exhibit 1, Tab A5 - p.21 / Aug 11, 2011

[Fraudulent Documentation]

PI (malignant) lungs / pleural meso... Exhibit D,

Tab C & D - SignedAug 7, 2006

Wrongful Death - Lungs Exhibit D, Tab E

Jurisdiction - ? AZ, NV, PA, TX

PI lungs and colon October 2006

Complaint - Exhibit D, Tab F / G Feb 2013

Exhibit D, Tab I / “death within 1 year of filing

complaint.” Tab F & G/Sep 27, 2010 after

Austin Trial Exhibit 3, p.10 / Exhibit 1, Tab A6.

Colon - Exhibit 1, Tab C1-C2, Ex. 4, p. 6.

PT Stomach - See Exhibit 1, Tab B1-B2, Ex.3, p. 85.

WD - Exhibit 9, Tab 19 never mentions causation.

(17)

The lower court decision might impede the

effectiveness of several federal statutes.

This case also presents an important 1st

Amendment conflict (right to free speech including

giving deposition (Mr. Michael Pascals see Exhibit D

Tab Al. providing own witness in known plaintiff

trials, right to ensure forthright judges aren’t

illegally removed)); 4th Amendment conflict (officers

of the court, LA Deputy Attorney (W&P), and “Heirs

at Law” which includes government officials / see

Exhibit 3, Tab A1-A27 seizing and hyjacking plaintiffs

15 years of work journals for the purposes of

theiving defendant settlements / properties therein;

7th Amendment conflict (right of trial by jury shall

be preserved, see Secret Ghost Trials Exhibit 3); 14th

Amendment conflict (no State shall make or enforce

any law which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the U.S., nor shall any

State deprive any person of liberty or property,

without due process of law, or deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

laws).

For this reason, this petition is a perfect vehicle

for deciding the question presented. Indeed, the

lower court judge presiding and district court of

appeals are deeply divided on the question(s)

provided and the case presents a clean vehicle to

multiple asbestos litigation / nation-wide issues.

Categorically, said questions are exceptionally

important, coupled with an arguable dismissal

that was principally incorrect.

(18)

,1,V '-■?

One such category includes covering-up criminal

activity (by government officials) for the purposes

of embezzlement (See Exhibit 4, p.9 & Exhibit 12,

p. 174. 18). U.S.C. 371. San Francisco Superior Court

asbestos department ilpoHenza-sorso23.it>fvmi>san£rancisco-superior*court-asbestos-department...

Like the Adorno Yoss Alvarado Smith’s pay-off

for denying the Pascale’s yet another trial (See

Exhibit 6 / BC393210), such conspiracy resulted from

corruption, which impacts us all greatly. Coupled

with the fact that coordination seems wide-spread.

Fundamentally, a change in justice and capability

thereof is a cover-up that may necessitate review.

Nevertheless, surely this broad ascertion that links

officers of the court with trashing our constitution

may be overarching; but specific instances as this

illustrates just the opposite. Exhibit 8 considers

needed context in determining extortion and witness

tampering. See p. 65-66 showing M.Pascale’s co-worker

deposition 1, p. 50. Mr. Nixt was threatened to

change (180) his testimony or else be turned in

for taking construction materials from St. Mary’s

insultation and using it on the J.C. Penny’s job.

See Depo 6, p. 1405-1414. When looking at this claim,

one must first view Mr. Nixt Depo 5, p. 1024

wherein Brayton Purcell attorney calls-out a

conspiracy “PLAN” wherein every M.Pascale

settlement would be stolen by plaintiff & defense

attorney’s who bought into the “PLAN.” Furthermore,

with what we know (Ex. 8, page 42), the Walt Disney

World (Hotel) entity(s) theft(s) is a prime example of

the “premise theft scheme” as seen in Ex. Preface

p. 22 (4th*5th sentances). At first glance, closely

related to this is Exhibit J (oil company premises).

(19)

Notably, Exhibit 8, p. 12, introduces a conflict

between BPs attorney sibbling (Eskel Solomon)

who is the Deputy Attorney of Water & Power

and Denton’s dual agency attorney Brad DeJardin

(who is stealing a number of settlements as seen

Ex. Preface p. 12). Likewise, Eskel (who is stealing

Edison*Haynes-Scattergood PH settlements) warns

Denton’s attorney to stay quiet. See Ex.8, p. 46.

L.Nixt depo p. 2266/2269. Due to the limited docs

in LA Superior Court Archives, part of M.Pascale’s

stolen work journals can be seen showing the

Walt Disney Hotel. See Ex. 8, p. 71, 93-96. Eric and

Eskel’s sibblmg(s) are Maria who is handling the

defendant thefts for Gordon Rees (Maria’s alias is

M. Pascale Ex. 0, p.65-67) and David Solomon ceo

Goldman Sach’s (Exhibit 0, p.64 who uses alias’s

Patricia Pascale & Patricia Ann)... “Engaging in

mult-billion dollar fraud schemes isn’t that

inconsistent with the kind of work that Golman is

known for.” For now, the examplefa) described clearly

demonstrates the claim - “racketeering.” Indeed, this

would not include Foster Wheeler’s attorney who

was not comfortable buying into BP’s PLAN. See

Ex. 8, p.17 (LN depo p. 1717). In fact, Ms. Ahshetabi

would not give her name. Her supervisor (Ms. Flyn)

ensured all records were accurately noted. See LN

depo 9, p. 2220 line 14. Contrast this with Ex. 0,

p. 11-12 wherein BP’s attorney & defendant lawyers

do the same July 20, 2020. See Ex. 0, p. 11 -12.

18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 18 U.S.C. 201, 666 Racketeering,

Embezzlement 503 PC, 514.040, Forgery 18 U.S.C. 25,

471-509, 495. See People v. Wooten (1996) 44 Cal-App.

4th 1834, 1842 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 765]; 42 U.S.C. 1983,

1804. See People v. Ashley (1954) 42 Cal.2d. 246,

259-265 (267 P.2D 271}.

(20)

Also related is Ex. 12 p.121 ARCO / Atlantic Richfield

and p. 122 #1,2,3 Paramount Oil, Union Oil, Std. Oil.

HP’s trial binder (Ex. 12. p.118'123) coupled with Alt_

Entities (p.3) and Secret Trials (p. 11)..., each known

trial call-out obtained from L.A. Superior Court

Archives have been “tabbed” across Ex. 1 ■ 12b / A- Q.

A Quick-List of PI Doe’s seeen in Ex. 11, p. 1-3, 6-7,

21, 36, 43, 44, 51, 53-54, 57, 63-64, 72-76, 78-84, 97-101

103-104, 107, 109-110, 111b, 114-123, 128-133, 147.

Ex. 12, p. 1-2, 18, 51, 82-90, 92-104, 106-115,126, 128,

137-140, 148-149, 156-157, 158-161, 166-170, 174, 196,

209, 212. Ex. 12b, p. 3, 22, 31-33, 37, 40, 50, 52, 58,

62-76, 79,87-89, 93-98, 101-106, 108-118, 120-128,

130-136, 138-187, 191-197. Plaintiffs stolen work

journal(s) (15 years) with a partial recovery 1973 1977 (but heavily redacted by attorney's) list includes:

Exhibit 12, p. 116-117, 180-181.

Exhibit 12, p. 271-272 #5 shows a list of

defendants that agreed to the $12.56m demand:

“have not answered the Complaint but have appeared,

pursuant to C.C.P. 1014, by their attorneys having

given notice of their appearance to plaintiffs’ counsel

by way of a written agreement to resolve cases before

answers are filed and without going to trial.”

Once again, PI case C484162 / re-instated as

FCS 10 345910 (unlawful jurisdiction - SF)...the

aforementioned list includes 13 defendants +1

“Chevron Products Company” from p. 271, #1. The

pain-suffering / punitive damand can be seen on

Ex. 1, p. 172-173-174- 174b~175. [Each defendant

demand equals $12.560.000 + approx $lm in

mmpemsatorv damages. The Pascale’s called several

defense law firms - “Acct- Payable” and “unofficially”

were told that the settlement was approx $10.5m.

(21)

Page 272 #7 shows 3 defaults. Again, I each] had

$12.56m and approx $lm in compensatory damages.

#3 Plant Insulation - judgement went into bankruptcy

settlement (2^07-bk* 1927 IBB / 2OT-20016-BB) along

with #4 Thorpe Insulation Company.

Meanwhile, General Dyanamics demand = $12.56m

+ compensatory which was the same for [each]* Exxon

Mobil Oil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation,

(no space after Exxon) and Ingersoll-Rand Company.

Furthermore, there are 14 additional defendants

on this list. There is no sufficient supporting

evidence for these... in addition top. 272 #2

employer settlements. Other defendants include

Exhibit 4, p. 67 - 100. These records (among others)

were unlawfully removed from court records.

Wrongful Death Doe’s can be seen in Exhibit 9.

Exhibit K p. 63-136 shows additional defendants

sued in addition to 85 co-workers being deposed.

One of these included Mr. Prager who shared his

testimony pertaining to ‘West Con.” Ex. 12, p. 52,

and Union Bank settlement on p. 53 (BP’s email).

Three other examples include Exhibit 12, p.83,

p. 84, and p.90 whereby BP’s attorney 0. Noah

illustrate defaults for Aqua Chem and GM Motors

Corp., and “settled” status for Bayer CropScience

Inc. Collectively, all were concealed and stolen.

The conclusion that compensatory damages

are approx $lm stems from Exhibit 10, p. 18 and

19 as well as p. 20 and p. 21. First of all, p. 18

and 19 illustrates approx $11.5m stolen from

FCS 10 345910 and $11.5 from WD BC500626.

Furthermore, p. 20 and p. 21 represents approx

$27m for FCS 10 345910 & the same for BC500626.

Contrast this with p. 58, 59, 60... $13.5m stolen.

(22)

Fundamentally, other states have similar statutes

to the one’s presented. It may be reasonable for

the Supreme Court to also assume that the

conflicts depicted are national in scope.

For example, Presiding Judge Thomas Home

described one of his asbestos cases as the “worst

deception” used in discovery that he had seen in

his twenty-two years on the bench.

See Asbestos Claims Legislation, Hearing Before

The Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and

Administrative Law of the Committee on the

Judiciary, House of Representatives, 112th Cong.

(May 10, 2012) (statement of Leigh Ann Schell, at

2012 WLNR 9840045.

Another example, Delaware Superior Court

Judge (ret.) Peggy Ableman illustrated a patter of

abuse in her recent testimony before a U.S.

Congressional committee. House of Representatives,

113th Cong. (March 13, 2013) (statement of Hon.

Peggy L. Ableman), at 2013 WLNR 7440143.

When Ohio’s (2012 first-of-its-kind asbestos trust)

transparency legislation was being debated,

opponents claimed that the legislation would be

the result in endless delays and unfavorably

dening living plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard

in court.

The Washington Legal Foundation, also called

on the DOJ to act. See Glenn Lammi, Cleaning Up

the Asbestos Litigation Mess: A Role for the DOJ.

Forbes, com April 2, 2018.

(23)

General conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371, states, ‘two

or more persons conspiring either to commit an offense

against the U.S., or to defraud the U.S., or any agency

thereof in any manner or purpose ” This includes

extortion / witness tampering as seen on page 19.

Exhibit G, Tab C shows a service list associated

with the Air Force ADR, noticably... theAF Jag was

removed and/or government document altered.

Surprisingly, an annonymous mailing suggested

that the judge presiding over the AF, Marines,

Navy proceedings / theft in 2007 allegedly might

have been Allan Brayton. Discernibly, this occurred

prior to Brayton Purcell becoming legal counsel for

the Pascale’s Sep 2007. Alarmingly, the linking pin...

appears to be P.Cook from W&K (sibbling to

H.Cook from Brayton's Firm). Such coordination

conspicuiously falling under “C700000 Dept. 59,

CACI 103, or JCCP 4674. Willfully, docs are only filed

unless there is a default. Consequently, the Pascale’s

have been unable to obtain docs from any law

firms. See Bollinger v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49,

57-58[ll5 Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1.

Under 18 U.S.C. Section 371 there is no time

limitation for prosecution involving taxes (evaded)

with punitive damages stolen from the AF, Navy,

Marines, or VA Hospitals. See 26 USC 7201.

18 U.S.C. 641. One more case in point is the

Federal Instument of Debt (2:07*BK-19271*BB).

BP’s counsel sent the Pascale’s this document in

2018. Seemingly, it applies to all of settlements for

Thorpe Insulation Company, Thorpe Insulation Co.,

Plant etc... (See Exhibit 5) judgements obtained in

Secret Trials. Title 18 U.S.C. 470 & 471 may also

apply in addition to 5 U.S. Code 554 and 8 U.S.

Code 1324c. The claims involving the government

may indeed fall under 337 U.S. 168 *171 & 193 *194.

(24)

Noticeably, the Pascale Family went to the L.A.

Bankruptcy Court and met with an assistant.

She explained that there are no documents

related to Mr. Pascale and/or 2:07-bk-1927TBB.

As seen in Exhibit 5 p.27 and Exhibit K, p. 7b...

Verus LLC - Thornton are the designated 524(g)

used for Thorpe, Plant, Western, Pacific, RPI, and

Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust

embezzlements. Exhibit K, p. 21 and 22 show other

settlements stolen after July 2017 with Waters &

Judge Krause firm client number “05-1412” / Brayton

Purcell client number “108189.001.” Page 22 shows

the THAN payment going to one of these 2 law

firms and not to the Pascale Family. All of the

asbestos trust were notified that BP’s representation

ended July 2017. On the other hand, Pascale’s have

received 34 Personal Injury 524(g) asbestos trust

payments. Although this may not be the case. After

a closer look, most are laced with accounting fraud.

See Exhibit M. Too sum up, the Pascale’s have filed

over 100 wrongful death claims from Sep 2018 June 2019 of which the Family has received $0.

With little doubt, as Federal 524(g) entities, this

is unlawful. Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp. (971704) 527 U.S. 815 (1999) 134 F.3d 668.

Examples include Exhibit 10, p. 27, p. 28.' Ex. 12b

p. 36, p. 90, 104-113. Notably, see theft of THAg

(THAN), Quigley, Pfizer, Carey Canada, ABB

Lumus... etc. where attorney M. Mandelbrot provides

false information while working with Verus LLC.* to

defraud the Pascale’s. Breach of Contract 41 U.S.

6503, See W.Distr. Co. v. Diodosio, 841 P2d 1053, 1058,

Breach of Trust Code 16-13-230 Section 17200,

Breach of Fudiciary Duty 29 U.S. Code 1109. See:

Dept of Justice Combats Asbestos Trust Abuse.

(25)

Like the malice shown with 524(g) settlements,

the Family first discovered that Brayton Purcell +

Waters & Judge Krause had taken case BC345910

to trial(s) on Sep 2, 2017. See Ex. Preface p. 20.

Other notable emails can be seen on p. 21... “There

is no open case in the court system. You and your

family need to move on.” At first glance, closely

related to the 524(g) deception is the reinstatement

of C484162. See Preface p. 8, 16, 17, 18 (upper left

corner-last line), Exhibit B, p. 59 “unresolved,” p. 60

Ex. 0, p. 10a (bottom right) “appellate”, and Exhibit E...

use of illegal case number to hide FCS 10 484162 i.e.

BC 2 45910 and Grp 879 and 881.

Looking back at BP’s counsel who claims that the

Pascale’s signed RPFs dismissal... this is certifiably

false as well. Preface p. 24. The Pascale’s did not sign

releases for RPI & Bayside Insulation - these releases

were forged. What’s more, the Pascale’s didn’t

receive a penny from any WD BC500626 Doe’s.

Indeed, all trial have been concealed and settlements

stolen. Obviously, this includes Fluor Enterprises &

Middle East Fluor. Ex. 1, p. 68-69. Bottom line, those

settlements were unlawfully lifted as well. See

Section 16-13-230, 1962 Code Section 16*365 Breach

of Trust with a fraudulent intent coupled theft by

deception 514.040. “Lies Upon Lies” (James McCarty,

Judge Becomes Nat’l Legal Star, Bars BP firm from

Court Over Deceit, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Jan 2007,

at Bl) see Exhibit 12, p. 185, 186-190. Prosecution of

premised) scheme did involve W&K as seen in

Exhibit 11, p.108. Exhibit 1, p. 193 shows Union Bank

p. 202, Pacific Telephone p. 208, p. 196, Exhibit 8,

p. 152, “All Def in Universe,” including premises

Ex. 0, p.l5b, p. 149, (Exhibit M premise research

expense p. 1, p, 3), Ex. I, J, L, and Ex. B, p. 15*19,

72-73, Ex. 11, 12, and 12b.

(26)

All (15+) known jury trials (exclusively “Pascale”

+ several coordinated cases - see Feb 23, 2009 and

Sep 2010) See Exhibit 0 Preface p. 2 were cloaked

with secrecyfrom the Pascale Family.

A few trial called*outs... can seen in Appendix 3.

During the (limited) research phase, what became

obvious is that undisclosed trials or hijacked case(s)

C484162/FCS 10 345910 + BC500626 yielded no

precedence; hence, warranting fundamental societal

significance. The Pascale case(s) conflict directly

applies to U.S. doctine. Our Constitution lends

itself to correcting the malice, oppression,

predjustice, legal corruption, and collusion that

has taken place.

Exhibit 3, Tabs B1-B4, RPI Company example

shows the Pascale’s opting for ADR. In doing so,

the settlement theft via release forgery could be

harbored easier by BP & Doug Wah (Foley

Mansfield) but removes the Pascale’s right to

trial. Thus, the Pascale’s 1st and 14th Amendments

are infringed. RPI Company and Bayside Insulation

and Construction, Inc. (successors to Thorpe and

Plant) represents approx $20m being embezzled

to the far east via Pacific Counsel. Prior to that

happening though, the stolen settlements appear

to be laudered by Verus LLC and Thornton in

conjunction with The Reno Group. Notably,

same scenario used for . stealing Allis-Chalmers

Prd Liability Trust settlements (concealed trials

#5, #9, #11, #12 Preface p. 2) as well as other

asbestos 524(g) trust settlements. Seen on next

to last page of Preface examples and / or Exhibit K.

(27)

Reasons For Granting The Petition

This case is a superior vehicle for resolving a

circuit conflict on a well-defined legal issue (CCP

583.310) of great importance to this nations asbestos

litigation policies as well as 524(g) shortcomings.

Federal Civil Rule 16, Rule 26(a), and Rule 26(e) (l),

iii; prohibits secrecy and discovery / governmental

discrimination, oppression, and malice for any

purpose including embezzlement. Rule 16 B(iii)

provides for disclosure or preservation of

electronically stored information. Exhibit 1, p. A.

Federal Rule of Evidence 502 also includes any

agreement the parties reach for asserting claims

of privilege and trial preparation materials after

information is produced, including agreements.

18U.S.C. 2017.

The Pascale Family was NOT able to obtain

any WD documents prior to Aug 3, 2020. Given: the

Court may set aside a judgement at anytime

using its equitable powers under CCP 128(a)(8),

86(b)(3) when such a judgement is based on

extrinsic Fraud. Exhibit 0 Tab 1 shows that on

Aug 3, 2021, Judge Cunningham ordered dismissal

“tentatively” (See transcript Appendix p. Al) for

failure to prosecute per CCP section 583.310... he

did so to preserve the “appeal cause.”

Elevated to the 2nd District Court of Appeal,

reason for dismissal calls out “non-appealable”

citating Sherman v. Standard Mines (1913). Both

seem to be irrelavent. See Petition p. 36, U.

(28)

In order to side step this, the Court fraudulently

altered records (See 18U.S.C. 1361, 641, 2071)

stating that Judge Cunningham was not the

attorney presiding. Rather, Judge Stuart M. Rice

was presiding.

See Exhibit Preface, p. 4. Furthermore, all docs

requested in the appeal (See Exhibit 0, p. 20) were

ultimately denied. The Court simply stated that

those records didn’t exist any longer.

“Our system of discovery was designed to increase the

liklihood that justice will be served in each case, not

to promote principles of gamesmanship and deception

in which the person who hides the ball most effectively

wins the case.” Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v.Marsick (1998)

810hio St. 3d 551

The emails shown in Preface p. 20*23 show that

the Pascale’s were never suppose to find out about

their wrongful death case... with trials & settlements

going to the 10 “Heirs at Law” which includes BP

and Waters & Kruase. See Exhibit 1, p. 41 and p. 42.

Exhibit 1, p. 29 further displays both RPI Company

and Bayside Insulation and Construction, Inc.,

settling via an unlawful + concealed ADR * coupled

with forged releases. Prior pages also pageants

Brayton Purcell communicating its’ intent to finish

RPI Company alternate entities July 2017.

Moreover, “Heirs at Law” counsel states that

this this was completed by March 02, 2018. Hence,

the decision below is incorrect.

Aug 3, 2021 states “Dismissal for Failure to

Prosecute 583.310.” The error was the same in

2009... as seen only it states “Before Trial."

(29)

Such an alliteration is worthy of duplicitous

derision given U.S. Law & Constitution / 7th

Amendment... as the Judge seems to be aware of

trials being conducted clandestinely. By the same

token, if a prevailed pattern repeats itself, the

“Heirs at Law” are informally (See Exhibit O)

stealing settlements via FCS 10 345910 (San

Francisco). Some say nothing short of a duplicit

criminal undertaking. Records specifically show that

after dismissal in 2009, SF Secret Ghost Trials

continued summer 2010 and coordinated trial

Sep 2010 and May 2011. Exhibit 3, p. 61-62 followed

by p. 8, p. 10. Evidence may suggest, SF illegal

jurisdiction was / is for the purpose of concealment

and embezzlement (CCP Part 2 Title 4_5, 410.50 Stats.

1969, Ch. 1610). Motion to Transfer Venue,

reclassification (FCS 10 345910) and coordination

of civil actions [392 - 404.9]. Exhibit 2, p. 15 shows

that there was a Secret Trial involving Fluor

Enterprises, Inc. with special Jury Verdict July 16,

2019; (Ex. 1, p.66). Consequently, Brayton Purcell

was prosecuting the Pascale case illegally much

like 2010. See Exhibit 3, p. 61 - 62.

(Exhibit 0, p. 7c) see Exhibit 3, p. 54. Clearly the

Court errored in its determination^ “Lack of

Prosecution.”

Similar to the unlawful and fraudulent

replacement of Judges in 2006, BP illegally

replaced to 2 Judges (peremptory challenges)

on behalf of the Pascale’s Dec - Jan 2018 / 2019

(see Exhibit 0, p. 50) (Exhibit 1, p. 78).

(30)

On July 27, 2017, Brayton Purcell terminated its’

representation of the Pascale Family. See Exhibit

Preface p. 21 1st sentance p. 23. To complement this

action and to banish any future confusion...

Mrs. Pascale filed Pro Se paperwork with the

Court on Mar 20, 2018 (See Exhibit 0, p. 7d * 7e

and/or Tab 7, Tab E). Once again, documents were

unlawfully removed from court records.

See People v. Avery 2002 27 Cal.4th 49, 57-58

[115 Cal.Rptr.2d.403, 38 P.3d l}. Violations to the

1st Amendment also includes illegal peremptory

challenges by Waters & Krause attorney Michael

Armitage (illegal filing of fraudulent personal injury

case (causation- stomach) Jan 2006 and removal of

Judge March 2006). W&K had not been retained.

Denton’s / McKenna Long + DeHay & vElliston LLP

removed Judge Munoz.’ thereby, acting in collusion

with with Waters & Judge Krause firm as a dual

agent (see Exhibit Preface p. 10 and p. 12).7

7‘The integrity of the individual lawer is the heart and soul

of our adversary system {that} depends on the integrity, moral

soundness, and uprightness of the lawyer... there can be no

breach or compromise in that essential quality of an officer

of the court without seriously undermining our entire

adversary system.” Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1991), 74 Ohio St.

3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237. Exhibit 0 Tab 2. "Heirs at Law”

See Exhibit Preface p. 27 and p. 28.

(31)

On Oct 3, 2016... a trial occurred involving a

defendant Special Electric Company, Inc. This

firm was slated for trial as seen in BP’s trial

binder (See Exhibit 12 p.l87b) (Exhibit 0, p. 46).

As seen on p. 63 of Exhibit 0, the “Heirs at Law”

and BP may have been laundering their

embezzlements! thereby, opening illegal accounts

at Chase using Michael J. Pascale’s SSN (Aug 2017/

Nov 2015 Accts. 201724066161 /1675543091).

Asbestos trust collusion and theft occurring right

up to June 2019 as seen in Exhibit 0, p. 61-62.

Union Carbide / Honeywell Inc. prosecution - dismissal

Sep 2015. See Ex. 0, p. 70-73.

Exhibit 0, p. 7c shows that BP no longer represents

the Pascale’s as of July 27, 2017. Docket Board

in Court House Nov 3, 2020 shows Mark Pascale

v. RPI Company prosecution as seen in EJxhibit 9,

p. 9e. Records posted on-line only after Aug 3, 2020

which violates Fed Rule 16b3iii, 4, 4c2f. (See

Exhibit 1, Preface p. A & B). (AFTER DISCOVERY

7HAD BEEN CLOSED as seen in Exhibit 0, p. ll)

making “discovery” near to impossible.

Pascale’s had a coordinated trial pending on June

7,2021. See Exhibit 0, p. 9g. February 2021 Steven

Pascale received a death threat pertaining to

March 2021 hearing; hence, did not go but wrote

Judge Cunningham about the matter via certified

mail. BP had the Pascale’s case dismissed during

(32)

that meeting despite “Pro Se” status which the

Judge knew about. See Exhibit 0, p. 00, 000, and

7c-7d. See Exhibit 0, p. 9h. Judge removed the

trial (scheduled for June 7, 2021) on March 2021

with no notice. See Sullivan, supra, 256 Cal.App.

2d 304.

Page 9 f shows prosecution of the Stardust Hotel

which only Mr. Pascale & Mr. Gaia worked at

along with their employer Mundet Cork. Page 9L,

and 9m shows defendant “Bragg” which can be

seen in Mr. Pascale’s stolen work journals.

Page 38 - 45 shows that the Pascale’s were

prosecuting their case... and shared this with Judge

Cunningham. Exhibit 1, p. 76 was provided by an

annonymous source showing ExxonMobil Oil

Corporation Inc. along with Union Carbide,

Bayer Crop Science, Inc., and MetalClad Insulation

Corp were also being unlawfully prosecuted 2019.

Collectively, these examples show that the Court

errored in its dismissal for lack of prosecution

within 5 years.

The division of authority among presiding Judge

Cunningham and lower courts has led to

inconsistent statements. The Judge stating

(Appendix A, p. 13) “sure, here is what I will do.

The court is adopting it tentative with respect to

the court of appeal cause ” The 2nd Appellate

Court is particularly untenable given the

government discrimination shown, “Heirs at Law”,

Fredick Bennett (LA Superior Court Counsel)

together with Doug Wah (RPI defendant attorney)

who is now working for the LA Appellate Court.

(33)

-

-1

Appendix C - Court Reason for Denying Appeal

“This court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal taken

from a nonappealable order.”

The Court was clearly mistaken.

A. The Court ordered dismissal and unlawfully

eliminated trial scheduled for June 7, 2021 with

no reason, a violation to the Pascale’s

Constitutional Right 7th Amendment and 14th.

CCP 128(a)(8) and 86(b)(3), Deprivation of Rights

42 U.S.C. 1983

B. Proper Service ■ none. 473.5

C. p. C2 Factually, the appeal was signed when

filed which was by mail on Aug 18,2021. Duplicate

in-person submission on August 23, 2021. See

Exhibit 00, p. 6 Tracking #1Z023RE20213524761.

D. Exhibit 00 p. 12. Shows “No” is checked and a

petition was not attached because both Brayton

Purcell & LA. Bankruptcy Court are concealing

or removing court records unlawfully. There

are other bankruptcy proceedings pending including:

Pittsburgh Corning (#82470688), Owens Corning

FibreBoard, Owens Illinois (Paddock), Murray, Sepco,

Maremont, Bestwall, Duro Dyne, Aldridge Pumps, and

several others. Furthermore, prosecution(s) has not

been completed for* Government Instrument of debt

2:07-bk-19271-BB as Bank of NY Mellon won’t

disperse payments or records. Client representative

died in 2017. Therefore, 2 Cussips should still be

in plaintiffs escrow account i.e. 912810EB0 and

912828HR4. Collectively, all Cussips have been

stolen which includes judgements with punitive

damages and taxes owing thereof.

(34)

E. Court has mistaken—case 2*07-bk-29271-BB

and 2:07-20016-BB defendants Thorpe Insulation,

Plant Insulation, and Western are indeed defendants.

In fact, Thorpe was an employer. Plant Insulation

can be seen in various Secret Trials including

San Francisco, Central, and LA. Superior.

F. C3 - “Court Orders shall be signed.” Judge

Cunningham was not to be found for signature.

In fact, the Court falsified the records stating that

Judge Stuart M. Rice presided over hearing on

August 3, 2021. 1663 Protection of Court Records,

18 U.S.C. 641, 1361, 2071. See U.S. v. Simpson, 460

F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1972).

G. Appendix C4, states that Patricia Pascale

appeared to be the sole appellant. The court

errored as seen in Exhibit 00, p. 26 dated Sep 26,

2021 “Party Information.” But to that end, BP had

Patricia Pascale sign a declaration on May 5, 2013

Preface Exhibit p. 26, #6 “declarant is authorized to

act on behalf of the decedent’s successorin-interest.”

H. Power of Attorney is a moot point as

Patricia Pascale was acting on behalf of herself +

Michael J. and Mark A. Pointedly... Steven Pascale

was designated as “self’ as well.

I. Judgement signature for Secret Trial July 16,

2019 - Exhibit 00, p. 43. Court records have been

concealed and unlawfully removed. Pascale’s

requested documents as seen onp. 22, bottom #4,

and the court turned around and requested it

from the Pascale’s.

(35)

K' •• JS

J.'As seen in Exhibit 00, p. 20... every doc

requested - none were produced.

K. This behavior was well chronicled in

Declaration #2 provided to Judge Cunningham

June 26, 2021 (Appendix A13) which the Judge

said he didn’t receive. Certified Mail:

7020-0640-0001-1966-8615. Declaration #3 was sent

to Judge Cunningham on July 1, 2021 via Certified

Mad 7020-0640-0001-1966-9803.

L. Appendix p. C4 * “Removed from Court Ffies

and unable to substantiate”... Wrong. Signed

judgement from presiding Judge on Aug 3, 2021 Judge Cunningham was swapped out with Judge

Stuart Rice and Cunningham vanished from Dept.

15 like a ghost. Entry of Judgement from July 16,

2019 was removed from court records as well.

See Exhibit 0, p. 10a

M. Preface Exhibit p. 20 “First learned of Trials.”

N. Exhibit 2, p. 17 Court unlawfully removes

trial documents from records-dated 11/26/07,

04/03/07, 06/24/09, 04/25/07. Plaintiffs letter Ex. 2

p. 14. Documents seen: p. 20, 21, 22, 23-27, 32.

O. Exhibit 2. p. 15. Court removes record.

P. Court manipulates records: p. 34-35. Images

removed March 2019 (weekend). Exhibit 4, p. 67-147,

p. 74-75.

Q. Exhibit 0, p. 000, If, 7b, 7d, 9c

R. Website / Court (limited) docs populated Aug 3,

2020 and unlawfully removed. Preface p.24-30.

S. Exhibit Preface - p. 25 removed from Court

T. Exhibit D - docs shows W&K unlawfully

prosecuting case in 2008.

(36)

U. Non-Appealable Order (Sherman v. Std. Mines).

“Not Appealable” setting aside default due to

failure to answer complaint within time allowed.

Strangely, the case cited (as seen in Appendix C6)

does not seem relevant i.e. Sherman v. Std. Mines.

Case dismissed based on CCP 583.310 i.e. “Lack of

Prosecution.” Pascale’s (WD BC500626) timely

answered in all regards given- BP (Heirs at Law)

violations to Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 16,

Rule 26, 29 - 37, Federal Rule of Evidence 502, 702.

Additionally, plaintiffs have been Pro Se (filed with

court as seen in Ex. 0, p. 7d'7e) since July 27, 2017...

Court keeps plaintiffs from discovery Exhibit 2,

p. 16. Ex. Preface p. 33. See Gov. Discrimination.

V. CA Supreme Court - Appeal Denied / No

W. Exhibit 0, p. 11 shows Discovery Closed 7-20-20

X. Exhibit 2, p. 16 shows plaintiffs electronic screen

is blank. Discovery Feb 2018 - Aug 3, 2020.

Y. Exhibit 9, p. 7 shows “blank screen” seen Feb 2018.

Appendix K- p. K26 Kananian v. Lorillard Tobacco

Company CV 442750... “Brayton Purcell counsel

consistently obstructed the discovery process.”

Z.A11 case related documents concealed from

plaintiffs until Aug 3, 2020. Discovery of WD

case. Exhibit 9 WD Complaint provided Nov 20,

2018 but was different than what BP/W&K

counsel communicated. See Ex. Preface p. 23.

Lastly, Pascale’s received documents beginning

2021 showing BP (Heirs @ Law) prosecution of

various def found in the WD complaint. See

Exhibit 1. p. 217 - 230. Preface p. 22 BP

communicating that it would be prosecuting

RPI Company July 21. 2017. Exhibit 1, p. 27-30

was obtained in 2018 showing BP executing per

its’ communication on Julv21, 2017. The court

and officers thereof misstepped in all regards.

(37)

Trial and Special Verdict for Fluor Ent. Inc

seen July 19, 2019 demand seen Exhibit 1, p. 69

coupled with Exhibit 0, p. 10a. Forged releases,

documents removed from court files, settlements

stolen. BP Lies Upon Lies Upon Lies Upon Lies.

See Exhibit Preface p. 20 - 23. Appendix K, p. K27

If there had been any complicity by any member of

the Kananian family, such a Draconian measure

might be appropriate; however, the family did

nothing improper. Therefore, the motion to dismiss

is overruled.”

Judge Harry Hanna CV 442750 Order & Opinion

Appendix K / Exhibit A p.8 / Conclusion

“The record before this court indicates that

Brayton Purcell institutionally failed to abide

by our rules. Brayton Purcell has NOT

conducted themselves with dignity. They have

not honestly discharged the duties of an

attorney in this case.”

“the objective record in this case tells an appaulling

story of lawyers’ oath of office dishonored and ethical

standards unmet, p. 1-2 (l-13) ’’Lied to the Court”

#9 “We need not repeat the findings that plaintiffs’

counsel consistently and persistently obstructed the

discovery process.”

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be

granted.

Respectfully submitted.

Steven Pascale

Petitioner

JULY 2022

(38)

CCP 683.310 4

Lack of Prosecution

Case tentatively dismissed

August 3, 2021

^25**—-Exhibit 0, p.9c Trial scheduled

for June 7, 2021 / Removed

no notice / no reasons

Pascale’s learn of

BC345910 case

going to trial * Preface p.20

I

pMnil .Till 9.1

9.01 7 Rravt/w Piirroll

l>-

state: "services limited to finishing

RPI Company + alternate entities

Preface p. 22 / Rep terminated July 27, 2017

ES July 16, 2019

Exhibit 1, p.lOa

Fluor Judgement

in trial ("Special Verdict),

then removed from court

records, subsequent trial

Nov 2019 Ex. 1, p.78

B Pascale’s trying to

prosecute case 2020*2021

Ex.O, p.39*46

D Laundering using

M.Pascale's (son) name

2016 *2017, Ex Op, 63

ifw

Cm QJ OT

_ Wrongful Death Case Filed * BC600626

Preface p.27 (Aug 18, 2011)

13 Preface p.28 "line 17” with in 1 year

of filing WD complaint. Feb 2013

B Preface p.25 (Sep 2010)

p.19 fraudulent diagnosis dates

O « « 8

O 5*73 a>

o 3 cr o

T3 OlS g

+* o 3 zn

!§•!«

B All PI settlements are partial dismissals

sSf3

=o °

3

E3 Brayton Purcell Hired Sep 2007

O W&K Fired Aug 15, 2007

BEx.

* Exhibit E

!e p.8 upper left last line

p. 17*19, 34

£3 Preface p.32

Ex.0, p.61

B Exhibit 0 p.70*73

p.46*49

/ Los Angeles BC345910 W&K

Personal Injury CaslFiled *

Personal Injury Case^iled * fColonl/ Tfexas Case 329014 Quilling Selandar + W&K

M Personal Injury Case>Reinstated SF flLungsi/ Pleural) FCS 10 345910

9 M.Pascale Idles S4p’20. 20051 c^)

g| M.Pascale Diagnosed with Stomach & Colon Mesothelioma May 13. 2005

Exhibil p.120 *121

Personal Injury Case ftLungd/ Pleural) C484162

^

Diagnosed 1979

(39)

B Exhibit 1

p. 27*28, 78*81,

p. 123, 127, 129*130

p.217*230, p.66

p.69, 71*76, 78, 80*81, 167