# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Bazargani v. Snyder (No. 09-267) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386017_0945%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 2009 ## Text S my 6 (@) uprame Court U.S. ’) No. 09-267 AUG 31 2086 OFFICE OF THE CLERK Sun The Supreme Court of the United States TAWOOS BAZARGANI, Petitioner, KENNETH and JACQUELINE SNYDER and PAUL BAGHERPOUR, Respondents. On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Third Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TAWOOS BAZARGAN!, M.D., Pro Se 40 Old Lancaster Road, No. 406 Merion, PA 19066 610-668-1064 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the opinion beiow departed from the accepted and usual course of Judicial proceedings and therefore necessitated the United States Supreme Court’s supervision because its ruling conflicts with this court’s prior rulings upon the plaintiffs’ malicious abuse of process and plaintiffs’ violation of peti- tioner’s due process rights involving petitioner’s postal property. 2. Whether opinion below departed from the accepted and usual course of Judicial proceedings and therefore necessitated the United States Supreme Court’s supervision because its ruling conflicts with this court’s prior rulings upon the plaintiffs’ violation of petitioner’s due process rights by seizing peti- tioner’s property after the judgment subject to litiga- tion has already been satisfied. 3. Whether opinion below departed from the accepted and usual course of Judicial proceedings and therefore necessitated the United States Supreme Court’s supervision because its ruling conflicts with this court’s prior rulings upon depriving a petitioner from petitioner’s due process rights by ordering against proceeding petitioner’s defenses while plain- tiffs continued to prosecute their claims against such a petitioner. QUESTIONS PRESENTED ~— Continued 4. Whether opinion below departed from the accepted and usual course of Judicial proceedings and therefore necessitated the United States Supreme Court’s supervision because its ruling conflicts with this court’s prior rulings upon plaintiffs’ entitlement for attorney fees while plaintiffs maliciously abused the legal proceeding in pursuing their claim to its merits. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Pe RPE Ee SOMURIEE TF Pie iscnascassacisvincessasncsccesirian onan STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PRO- VISIONS INVOLVED STATEMENT OF CASE A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY B. STATEMENT OF FACTS REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT 1. Whether the opinion below departed from the accepted and usual course of Judicial proceed- ings and therefore necessitated the United States Supreme Court’s supervision because its ruling conflicts with this court’s prior rulings upon the plaintiffs’ malicious abuse of process ana plaintiffs’ violation of petitioner’s due process rights involving petitioner’s post- al property. 2. Whether opinion below departed from the accepted and usual course of Judicial proceed- ings and therefore necessitated the United States Supreme Court’s supervision because its ruling conflicts with this court’s prior rulings upon the plaintiffs’ violation of petitioner’s due process rights by seizing petitioner’s property after the judgment subject to litigation has already been satisfied. 1V TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page 3. Whether opinion below departed from the ac- cepted and usual course of Judicial proceed- ings and therefore necessitated the United States Supreme Court’s supervision because its ruling conflicts with this court’s prior rul- ings upon depriving a_ petitioner from petitioner’s due process rights by ordering against proceeding petitioner’s defenses while plaintiffs continued to prosecute their claims against such a petitioner. 4. Whether opinion below departed from the accepted and usual course of Judicial proceedings and therefore necessitated the United States Supreme Court’s supervision because its ruling conflicts with this court’s prior rulings upon plaintiffs’ entitlement for attorney fees while plaintiffs maliciously abused the legal proceeding in pursuing their claim to its merits. I. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE OPINION BELOW CON- FLICTS WITH THIS COURTS PRIOR RULINGS UPON THE PLAINTIFFS’ VIOLATION OF PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS INVOLVING 'PETI- TIONER’S POSTAL PROPERTY AND PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHILE PROSECUTING Ee Ris sain scides vasiasieeiemnanepenseetiess 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued Page Il. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE OPINION BELOW CON- FLICTS WITH THIS COURT'S PRIOR RULINGS UPON THE PLAINTIFFS’ VIOLATION OF PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY SEIZING PETI- TIONER’S PROPERTY AFTER THE JUDGMENT SUBJECT TO LITIGATION HAS ALREADY BEEN SATISFIED.......... 13 lil. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THIS COURTS PRIOR RUL- INGS CONFLICTS WITH THE OPINION BELOW UPON DEPRIVING THE PETI- TIONER FROM PURSUING _ PETI- TIONERS DEFENSES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS WHILE PLAINTIFFS CON- TINUED TO PROCEED THEIR CLAIM AGAINST SUCH A PETITIONER .......... ne | IV. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THIS COURT'S PRIOR RUL- INGS CONFLICT WITH THE OPINION BELOW UPON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY FEES WHILE PLAIN- TIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS IN PROCEEDING THEIR CLAIM HAVE TOTALLY VIOLATED THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS INVOLVING PETITIONER’S POSTAL IEEE wares pecises hts cacnicivnses oeeeeee none 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page APPENDIX APPENDIX A United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Opinion (Filed May 5, 2009) .............. App. 1 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judgment (Filed May 5, 2009)........... App. 6 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Memorandum and PPG CE LISE GUY FZ, DIGS) oo csccccscscssccccscensecssonss App. 8 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Order (Filed July 2, a eaerad cevesixedass App. 10 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Order On Motion By Appellant To Reconsider Clerk’s Order (Filed April 17, ES barca acbs banck ude sistas sinsaesenakusscuasaseeases App. ll United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Order On Motion To Demand For Compensatory ._Damages LPOG BERTER B, BOOB)... .cccsccccesccceessssscnsscsscsness App. 12 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Memorandum and Order (Filed October 24, 2007)...................... App. 13 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Order (Filed Octo- or, rhc Vass digucsathnincasdesamepsncwinavs App. 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Order On Sur Petition For Rehear- ing With Suggestion For Rehearing En Banc (Filed June 2, 2009) APPENDIX B § 23:117 Pa. R.C.P., Rule No. 1019(b) Mali- cious abuse of process 39 § 3001 Postal Service Ch. 30 .......... ee. App. Federal Practice and Procedure (V-5C) § 1382. — Redundant, Immaterial, Impertinent, or Scandalous Matter Dy PE ee ON lls Wve ssesinsecksetcsarstavcarecscrsseeins App. : APPENDIX C United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Excerpts From Jury Trial — Day 1 (Filed June 14, 2005) App. United States District Court, Philadelphia, PA, Receipts Deposited Into Court Registry by Defendant, Bazargani Certificate of Service from Thomas E. Groshens (Filed January 22, 2008) First Class Mail (Postmark January 22, Letter from Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. to Ms. Anita Hill, Post Master, February 9, 2008...... App. Vill TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Letter from Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. to Ms. PIR TAGE, SUMS Dy BIB eeiecevccescenvssccceccsessss .... App. 34 Transmission Verification Report to Ms. Anita Hill, Post Master, June 9, 2008........... App. 36 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Writ of Execution ...App. 38 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Letter to U.S. Mar- shals Service (Received April 17, 2008)......... App. 40 Letter from Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. to Thomas E. Groshens Esquire, April 16, 2008.............. App. 41 Letter from Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. to Mr. Ronald H. Beifeld, Esquire, April 16, 2008...App. 42 PNCBank Account Balance, May 7, 2008.....App. 43 Affidavit of Mr. Feridoon Bazargani, June 27, SINE 1h scaii tases suvieieobacusexnuiestapuadeksioeckiatasuioeerskoess App. 44 Letter from Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. to Mr. Thomas E. Groshens Esquire, May 7, 2008...App. 46 Transmission Verification Report to Mr. Thomas Groshens, May 7, 2008).................... App. 48 Certified Mail Receipts, May 2008................ App. 49 Letter from Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. to Mr. Joel Gold, The PNC Financial Service Group, I cavenss 705 tsae 51 a0 lk onaascdeisesiecaieees sores App. ! a | bo - . —_ a) : . *. - / oe 3S ore to" se PF? S| ln My a te y fe * ba 7 - 2s. 2a ooo 4 LX TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued Page Performance Money Market Account State- moerat, FPECC RAGBUEE sccccacvsemeeereias felons cinvensceess App. 53 Certificate of Service from Thomas _ E. Groshens, June 27, 2008 ..........cccssscsccessssecssees App. 54 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Arbitration Award (Filed September 21, 2004)..............0.00..........App. 55 - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Association of Flight Attendants v. Horizon Air Indus., Inc., 976 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1992).......... Berg v. Georgetown Builders, Inc., 2003 Pa. Super. 151, 822 A.2d 810 (2003) Chemetron Corp. v. Jones, 72 F.3d 341 (3rd Cir. 1995) Garcia v. Wall & Ochs, Inc., 256 Pa. Super. 74, 389 A.2d 607 (1978) Glen Rock Borough v. Miller, 720 A.2d 800 (1998) Hodges v. Sasil Corp., 915 A.2d 1 (2007) Hoover v. McChesney, 81 F. 472 (C.C.Ky. 1897) ... In re Upset Sale, Tax Claim Bureau of Berks County, 505 Pa. 327, 479 A.2d 940 (1984) Independent Oil and Gas Ass’n of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Com’n, 804 A.2d 693 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002)..............ccceccces Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887 (2d Cir. 1976) McGee v. Feege, 517 Pa. 247, 535 A.2d 1020 CREE PD accisisscce Muirhead v. Zucker, 726 F. Supp. 613 (W.D. Pa. L9OS8Y) Page ae 21 awe 21 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued Page Neilson v. Union Bank of California, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (D.C. Cal. 2003)..................seceeees 19 Paskaly v. Seale, 506 F.2d 1209 ( Cir. 19'74)..cccccss 17 Pena v. Guzman, WL 253331 (D.C. N.Y. 2004)..........19 Pessin v. Keeneland Ass’n, 45 F.R.D. 10 (D.C. EEK SENN sc cak senuséanbccadeaseseeanswmunabpanammduentucdunmuaeiassienss 19 Rosen v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp., 399 Pa. Super. a ee se ee are © RUUD... .., .cneccavearcduanvavscceaapeucns cry Sullivan v. Barnett, 139 F.3d 158 (3rd Cir | RRA AE SSO eee eee De Hs L6 Thunberg v. Strause, 545 Pa. 607, 682 A.2d 295 |, IDES erm EOD 21 CONSTITUTIONS U.S. Const. amend. XIV .... | Rea Fa LS Pa. Const. amend. XIV 15 STATUTES 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq.... = euushasausuieleaane 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(f)(1 lo 28 U.S.C. Section 657(c). eee ore 6 28 U.S.C. Section 1254(1).. 7 cay ieaweuae 39 U.S.C.A. Section 3001 ......... eases nee ee Se 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 25038. 21 X11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued Page RULES Kederal Rules of Civil Procedure = ee piasbddusesdnahevessuboiee?s ” aoe Rule 12(f)............. ae epasaracevaiell Rule 54.171{/2)[e][i}..... aa EES 3,21 NE MEINE Bo. cccncisctsssenbesianannede aaeeesaeeans! nevee ae Rule 1019(b)........ Visapadeuteansas siasusat taxesaasieetataseelaaeice’ Rule 510.24[1][a] ] PERE Ree LUI ccccccccescocsscccens: 1 en er rr aT ss csdachudoeubaudevuscaviessdonsces st Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1019(b) l OTHER AUTHORITIES 1872, 14 Op.Atty.Gen. 143.......... , icawisnsveeme 1908, 27 Op.Atty.Gen. 49 a — to No — . ~ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OPINION BELOW The panel and en banc rehearing entered its judgment on June 2, 2009 for the case No. 08-3435 and the Order of District Judge and the opinion of the case are attached and the deadline date for filing the petition for the writ of certiorari is August 31, 2009. 5 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The panel and en banc entered its judgment on June 2, 2009. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. section 1254(1). + CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F. R. Civ. P.”) Rules 510.24[lifa] & 510.24[1]j[b] plus Rule 510.24[1][b]{i] govern the United States Supreme Court’s supervisory power assuring that circuit courts remain within accepted boundaries (these rules are reprinted in the Appendix B as they are documented). Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 10196) governs the abuse of legal process, the following documentation further explains about this Rule “The tort of abuse of process is concerned with a perversion of the legal process, that is, the improper use of process after it has been issued ... Legal 2 malice is not limited to motives of hatred or ill will, but may consist of a ... reckless and oppressive disregard”. 39 U.S.C.A., Section 3001, Note 1, No. 12, governs the Rules involving the delayed delivery of individual mail in a very precise and mandatory manner as follows: “The Postmaster General has no authority to order the detention of mail matter after it has reached its destination and been distributed by the Postmaster ready for delivery though there is well grounded suspicion that it is or has been attempted to be circulated in violation of law. 1872, 14 Op.Atty. Gen. 143. 39 U.S.C.A., Section 3001, Note 1, No. 3, governs the Rules involving due process rights of individuals’ postal property and the protection of their postal property as follows: “The Postmaster General has no power to make any contract or agreement with any corporation, partnership, or individual whereby such party shall enjoy privileges in connection with the use of the mails which are not granted to any other person... . 1908, 27 Op.Atty Gen. 49”, it further rules as follow: “The right to use the mails is a property right which can not be taken away except by due process of law”. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12, section 1382 governs the rules involving immaterial and impertinent motions as follows: “However, because federal judges have made it clear, in numerous opinions they have rendered in many substantive contexts, that Rule 12(f) motions to strike on any of these grounds are not favored, often being considered purely cosmetic”. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54.171[2][c][ij governs the entitlement of the attorney fees in litigations as follows: “Liability for Fees May Be Imposed on Counsel or Litigant Who Acts in Bad Faith”. When a party acts “in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons,” the court may employ its inherent equitable power to award attorney fees as sanction. Such a fee award is permissible under the bad faith ... and its purpose is to compensate the wronged party, punish the wrongdoer, and protect the integrity of the court. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: For twenty three (23) years, since purchase, the owner Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. (“Dr. Bazargani”) has always rented out, her property subject to this claim, at One Christian Street, Apt. 43, Philadelphia, PA 19147 (“rental property”), and for twenty three (23) years this property has been rented to the tenants without any animal, transcript of jury trial of June 14 & 15, 2005 included in the record {see trial transcript, Pg. 1.122, App. 23-26, and attached io previous petition for Writ of Certiorari of October 30, 2007, No. 07-399. For about a decade in 1980s Dr. Bazargani contracted the realtor NASH to manage the rental property and Mr. Thom Schlicking as the manager of the realtor had full authority in choosing any tenant who seemed reasonable but applied no pet policy. A copy of the lease of realtor NASH with tenants, Lisa Thurman, Betsy L. Buhl and Leslie Moran has been presented during the trial the following is from the lease paragraph “1. (a) witnesseth, section(s) No pets or animal of any kind whatsoever will be permitted on or within the herein’ described premises.” (see trial transcript, Pg. 2.22-2.25 attached to petition No. 07-399). In or about November 2000, Mr. Paul Bagherpour volunteered as the agent to procure tenant for Dr. Bazargani’s rental property and Dr. Bazargani agreed to compensate Mr. Paul Bagherpour as the agent (see trial transcript Pgs. 1.137-138). Dr. Bazargani told Mr. Bagherpour about the absolute prohibition against pets, and rejected the plaintiffs’ application merely because of having a pet. Dr. Bazargani, however, never instructed Mr. Bagherpour to reject certain types of tenant these facts are documented in trial transcript (see trial transcript Pgs. 1.127, App. 23-76). The rest of the plaintiffs’ story about the instant claim merely has been based upon the alleged con- versation between plaintiffs and defendant Paul Bagherpour whom alleged conversation with plain- tiffs has entitled plaintiffs of filing the instant claim and whom also has been relieved by plaintiffs from enduring any monitory damages in this claim in the expense of Dr. Bazargani being responsible involving any monetary claim demanded by plaintiffs. Dr. Bazargani is an innocent bystander in this claim who has only been held responsible as a principle of defendant Mr. Paul Bagherpour. Follow- ing the commencement of the action Dr. Bazargani retained Mr. Joel W. Todd from the firm of Dolchin, Slotkin & Todd in order to represent Dr. Bazargani in the instant claim. Because of agreement between the plaintiffs and Mr. Joel W. Todd about a Mutual Release where they would relieve Dr. Bazargani from any liability, therefore, there has not been any pre- trial discovery what so ever. However, Mr. Joel W. Todd later withdrew from the case without any substitution, Plaintiffs disregarded the signed Mutual Release by Dr. Bazargani, consequently, in June 2005 Dr. Bazargani proceeded to the de novo hearing with no discovery and no attorney (see petition No. 07-399) and on June 16, 2005 a verdict was issued for $40,000 compensatory damages against both petitioners plus punitive damages which was $20,000 for Dr. Bazargani and $30,000 for Mr. Bagherpour and the case was appealed. B. STATEMENT OF FACTS The instant complaint was filed by the plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pa. in or about December 2002. On or about September 20, 2004 an Arbitration hearing was held 6 where Dr. Bazargani was represented by her attorney Mr. Joel W. Todd from the firm of Dolchin, Slotkin and Todd. The Arbitrators’ decision was in favor of the owner petitioner Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. (“Dr. Bazargani”) a copy of decision is attached (see App. 55-56) and the Arbitrators also found $10,000.00 in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant Mr. Paul Bagherpour (“Mr. Bagherpour’”). Petitioner Mr. Bagherpour immediately after, appealed the Arbitrators’ decision. Therefore, plain- tiffs claimed the following: “The third Circuit’s recent decision in D’Jorio makes absolutely clear that once one party files a timely demand for a trial de novo, the case is restored to the docket and treated for all purposes as if the arbitration has never occurred” while referring to F. R. Civ. P. 83(a)(1) and the plain language of 28 U.S.C. section 657(c). Mr. Joe] W. Todd agreed with plaintiffs to sign a Mutual Release to relieve Dr. Bazargani from any lability in this claim, therefore, there has not been any pre-trial discovery (see Petition No. 07-399). However, later on, Mr. Joe! W. Todd withdrew from the case without any substitution, plaintiffs dis- regarded the Mutual Release which was signed by Dr. Bazargani and was relieving Dr. Bazargani from any liability and Dr. Bazargani who was unsuccessful to retain any attorney in June 2005 proceeded to the trial with no discovery and with no attorney. Following the verdict against Dr. Bazargani, although, at all time Mr. Paul Bagherpour was the resident of New Jersey but plaintiffs excused and pursuant to common law tort principle hold Dr. Bazargani responsible for the entire of Compensatory damages ordered against both defendant Paul Bagherpour and Dr. Bazargani. Consequently, by September 6, 2007 plaintiffs issued a Writ of Execation upon Dr. Bazargani for $60,000.00 plus $4,501.00 interest while the case was pending the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Dr. Bazargani motioned and objected to holding Dr. Bazargani responsible for defendant Paul Bagherpour’s share. On October 24, 2007 the Court tssued its Order where Dr. Bazargani’s Objection in reference to the Plaintiffs’ Writ of Execution was treated as a Motion and was denied and an Order was issued that Dr. Bazargani may obtain a further stay of the judgment by posting security in the sum of $75,000.00 which included Compensatory damages against both pe- titioners plus punitive damages in addition to $15,000.00 (see Appendix A). By December 2007 Dr. Bazargani issued check for a sum of $75,000.00 addressed to the Clerk of United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was posted with the clerk pursuant to the court order of October 24, 2007 (see Appendix A, App. 13-15). On January 22, 2008 plaintiffs filed “Plaintiffs’ Motion For Disbursement Of Funds Tendered To The Clerk And Deposited In The Registry Of The Court” in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsyl- vania. On January 22, 2008 plaintiffs served a copy of “Plaintiffs’ Motion For Disbursement Of Funds Ten- dered To The Clerk And Deposited In The Registry 8 Of The Court” upon petitioner Dr. Bazargani. Al- though the envelope containing the above mentioned motion in this paragraph was postmarked January 22, 2008 but inexplicably this mail was delivered to Dr. Bazargani by the mail man on February 8, 2008 that is seventeen (17) days past the date when the envelope was postmarked (see Appendix. C, App. 29- 30). Dr. Bazargani through her letters of February 9, 2008, and March 5, 2008 to the postmaster has documented about the seventeen days discrepancy between the dates of the mail being postmarked and the date of delivery of plaintiffs’ motion of January 22, 2008 where the plaintiffs were demanding to get access to the checks for $75,000.00 endorsed by petitioner Dr. Bazargani’s bank, (see Appendix C, App. 27-28). The seventeen (17) days discrep- ancy as documented above in this paragraph is not only a violation of the United States Constitution and the service is a nuility for itself, but more importantly, it is such a invasion of petitioner Dr. Bazargani’s mailing property which can be a serious risk to Dr. Bazargani professionally, economically and is such a serious crime that aside from the fine, it mandates one year imprisonment. Dr. Bazargani has exerted every effort to investigate such a risk to her professional and social life and the post offices have made it clear that they have not been instrumental in such a delay and they bear no responsibility in this crime. On the contrary the plaintiffs and their attorneys on an ongoing basis have avoided to respond to any questions involving 9 such a serious crime and have totally tried to avoid it (see Appendix C, App. 54). In May 2008 the plaintiffs have further victimized petitioner Dr. Bazargani as a pro se and have violated Dr. Bazargani’s due process rights by taking an action against Dr. Bazargani’s Personal property while having a levy upon Dr. Bazargani’s entire Bank Accounts in PNC Bank and plaintiffs have already satisfied the entire judgment by levying the Bank Accounts (see Appendix C, App. 43) while excusing the PNC as a cause for their action because of a Joint Account with Mr. F. Bazargani, Dr. Bazargani’s brother, while a week prior to plaintiffs action the Bank has utilized the same Joint Account to satisfy two checks, further Mr. F. Bazargani, has verbally and through his Affidavit (see Appendix C, App. 44-45) has informed the Bank that Dr. Bazargani can utilize the entire amount in the Joint Account. The Plaintiffs have presented a Supplemental Appendix basically about their action against the petitioner’s property after the judgment was satisfied which almost the entire Booklet has never been a part of the court record and were presented to the petitioner for the first time which petitioner Dr. Bazargani has objected. On May 5, 2009 the Honorable United States Court of Appeal for Third Circuit has issued its order against plaintiffs’ claim to held Dr. Bazargani responsible for defendant Paul Bagherpour’s share, considering defendant Paul Bagherpour’s for attorney fees and Compensatory damages, plaintiffs have satisfied the judgment by levying Dr. Bazargani’s all Bank Accounts, including plaintiffs’ excuses about petitioner Dr. Bazargani’s 10 Joint Account with her brother, indeed excluding defendant Paul Bagherpour’s share petitioner Dr. Bazargani’s cash available in her Bank Accounts have been more than twice of what plaintiffs have legally been entitle to levy petitioner Dr. Bazargani’s Bank Accounts to satisfy the judgment without violating Dr. Bazargani’s due process rights. Finally, Plaintiffs being so desperate to avoid the questions involving their criminal action, in proceeding their claim, plaintiffs tried to excuse that Dr. Bazargani’s motions being impertinent and demanded against Dr. Bazargani to pursue her defenses through the judi- clary system involving any matters in relation to plaintiffs’ claim (see Appendices A and B). * — REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE OPINION BELOW CON- FLICTS WITH THIS COURT’S PRIOR RULINGS UPON THE PLAINTIFFS’ VIO- LATION OF PETITIONER’S DUE PROC.- ESS RIGHTS INVOLVING PETITIONER’S POSTAL PROPERTY AND PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE FEDERAL RULES OF -CIVIL PROCEDURE WHILE PROSECUTING THEIR CLAIM. The Honorable United States Supreme Court’s supervision becomes necessary because petitioner’s 1] due process rights have been badly violated by plaintiffs abusing the legal process while proceeding their claim. Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule No 101.916) rules as follow: “abuse of process is concerned with a perversion of the legal process, that is, the improper use of process after it has been issued” see McGee v. Feege, 517 Pa. 247, 535 A.2d 1020 (1987); see Garcia v. Wall & Ochs, Inc., 256 Pa. Super. 74, 389 A.2d 607 (1978). The Rule further documents as follow: “Legal malice is not limited to motives of hatred or ill will, but may consist of a ... reckless and oppressive disregard” see Muirhead v. Zucker, 726 F. Supp. 613 (W.D. Pa. 1989); see Rosen v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp., 399 Pa. Super. 226, 582 A.2d 27 (1990). Plaintiffs have filed their motion “Plaintiffs’ Motion For Disbursement Of Funds Tendered To The Clerk And Deposited In The Registry Of The Court” on January 22, 2009 in order to get access to $75,000.00 deposited by petitioner Dr. Bazargani, pursuant to the court order of October 24, 2007, in the registry of the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania which necessitated a Response by petitioner by two weeks, that is, February 5, 2008 (see App. 29-30). The mail con- taining this motion has arrived to the local post office on February 8, 2008 while having a postmark of January 22, 2008 and was placed in Dr. Bazargani’s mail box by the mailman of the local post office the same day (see App. 31-37). Plaintiffs have abused the 12 legal process by delaying the delivery of the service of this motion for seventeen (17) days after the motion has been postmarked on January 22, 2008 to be mailed through the United States mail first class in order to be delivered to petitioner Dr. Bazargani. Consequently, plaintiffs by committing a crime and abusing legal process in order to delay the delivery of their service of their motion beyond two weeks plaintiffs have further committed a second crime by violating petitioner’s due process rights involving petitioner's postal property (see App. 29-30). U.S.C.A. Rule 39, Section 3001, Note 1, No. 12, rules as follows: “The Postmaster General has no authority to order the detention of mail matter after it has reached its destination and been distributed by the Postmaster ready for delivery though there is well grounded suspicion that it is or has been attempted to be circulated in violation of law. 1872, 14 Op.Atty. Gen. 143.” U.S.C.A. Rule 39, Section 3001, Note 1, No. 3, rules as follows: “The Postmaster General has no power to make any contract or agreement with any corporation, partnership, or individual whereby such party shill enjoy privileges in connection with the use of the mails which are not granted to any other person... . 1908, 27 Op.Atty Gen. 49”, it further rules as follow: “The right to use the mails is a property right which can not be taken away except by due process of law”. See Hoover v. McChesney, C.C.Ky. 1897, 81 F. 472. Indeed the above Rules involving the violation of the rights of an individual’s l3 postal property is such a serious crime that in addition to a fine also mandates one year imprisonment. It is self explanatory that the plaintiffs after committing such a serious crimes while proceeding their claim to its merit not only will be prohibited by law (See below Argument No. IV) about claiming any attorney fees but rather petitioner Dr. Bazargani who has only been held responsible “for alleged defendant Paul Bagherpour’s conversation with the plaintiffs” will be entitled to claiming the cost for retaining an attorney Il. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE OPINION BELOW CON- FLICTS WITH THIS COURT’S PRIOR RULINGS UPON THE PLAINTIFFS’ VIO- LATION OF PETITIONER’S DUE PROC- ESS RIGHTS BY SEIZING PETITIONER’S PROPERTY AFTER THE JUDGMENT SUB- JECT TO LITIGATION HAS ALREADY BEEN SATISFIED. The Honorable United States Supreme Court’s supervision becomes necessary because petitioner’s due process rights have been badly violated by plaintiffs taking action against petitioner’s property while the judgment subject to litigation was secured by levying petitioner’s Bank Accounts. Plaintiffs have claimed that pursuant to common law tort principle Dr. Bazargani can be held liable for 14 the entire judgment issued against both petitioners including attorney fees, the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit on May 5, 2009 has issued its Order against plaintiffs’ claim that plain. tiffs can hold petitioner Dr. Bazargani responsible for the damages ordered against both petitioners (that is the damages and attorney fees that have been issued against defendant Paul Bagherpour) (see App. 1-7). As it has been documented in Writ of Execution (see App. 38-39) plaintiffs have levied all of Dr. Bazargani’s PNC Bank accounts for $87,000.00 which has been far above the judgment amount and only included the generous amount of interests but also included defendant Paul Bagherpoar’s damages in addition to attorney fees which has contradicted the Order of May 5, 2009 of the Appellate Court, as documented above. According to the Bank Statements received from the PNC bank located at 1601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on May 30, 2008, which has remained unchanged since May 7, 2008, (see App. : ; f 43) the total amounts available in Dr. Bazargani’s PNC Bank accounts has far exceeded the _ total amounts of levies (see App. 38-39). On May 7, 2008 petitioner Dr. Bazargani, to personally reassure the plaintiff about the sufficient funds available in her PNC Bank accounts she has written her letters both to Mr. Jvoel Gold the attorney for PNC Bank and to Mr. Thomas E. Groshens, the plaintiffs’ attorney, which has successfully been faxed the same day also has been mailed certified with return receipt (see App. 46-51). On May 8&, 2008 plaintiffs while having 15 levies on petitioner Dr. Bazargani’ss .PNC Bank accounts which has satisfied the plaintiffs’ total claims (yet including co defendant Paul Bagherpour’s share also), while in total violation of petitioner’s due process rights, has taken action against petitioner’s property and while claiming a Marshal sale has bought the property “indeed has taken as a donation” which has been the violation of petitioner’s due process rights by any standard. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions make it explicitly clear that: “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United. States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” See In re Upset Sale, Tax Claim Bureau of Berks County, 505 Pa. 327, 479 A.2d 940, 953 (1984); Glen Rock Borough v. Miller, 720 A.2d 800 (1998). Petitioner Dr. Bazargani’s asset was wrongfully seized, without due process, without notice and without any hearing, The affirmance of the lower court’s opinion can be a drastic precedent in allowing creditors to liberalize the notice standard as well seizing assets above the judgment amount. The plaintiffs’ acts as a creditor were in complete disregard of public policy and due process. 16 It must be held against public policy when a creditor seizes assets that are in excess of a judgment and levy would serve no purpose but harassing a debtor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 USC Sec. 1692, et. seq.) protects the defendant in this case. Congress determined that the purpose of the Act was due to evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices. Jd. One of the requirements is that judgments must be verified. However, in this case the judgment was not verified prior to the Marshal’s sale because the substantial evidence provided that the money was seized from the Petitioner’s bank accounts. Seeking unjustified amounts is a clear violation of the Act. 15 USC Sec. 1692(f)(1); Hodges v. Sasil Corp., 915 A.2da 1 (2007). The Petitioner did not have adequate notice of the motion and the seizure of assets. “Adequate notice detailing the reasons for a proposed termination of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest must be afforded to individuals prior to the depriva- ion.” Sullivan v. Barnett, 139 F.3d 158, 172 (3rd Cir. 1998). The notice provided must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise inter- est parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Chemetron Corp. v. Jones, 72 F.3d 341, 346 (8rd Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs in their motion. “Schedule of Distribu- tion” has excused petitioner Dr. Bazargani’s joint account with her brother (Mr. Feridoon Bazargani) at PNC Bank as a cause for taking action against 17 petitioner’s property and have accused that the PNC Bank has not released petitioner’s assets from the joint account, such an accusation is against the PNC Bank’s transaction of April 30, 2008 (a week prior to Marshal sale) when the PNC Bank has satisfied the legal check from the very same joint account and is nothing but a facade for plaintiffs’ illegal action (see App. 53), furthermore, PNC Bank orally and finally through Mr. Feridoon Bazargani’s affidavit has been informed that petitioner Dr. Bazargani may utilize the entire asset according to her discretion (see App. 44-45). Fourteenth Amendment, section one, note 921 rules as follow “Refusal in an administrative pro- ceeding to permit a party to introduce evidence or otherwise made an effective defense may constitute a denial of due process if either liberty or property is at stake in the proceeding” see Paskaly v. Seale, C.A. Cal 1974, 506 F.2d 1209. lil. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THIS COURT’S PRIOR RUL- INGS CONFLICT WITH THE OPINION BELOW UPON DEPRIVING A _ PETI- TIONER FROM PURSUING PETITIONER’S DEFENSES WHILE PLAINTIFFS CON- TINUE TO PROSECUTE THEIR CLAIM AGAINST PETITIONER. The Honorable United States Supreme Court’s supervision becomes necessary because petitioner’s due process rights have been badly violated by 18 banning petitioner from pursuing her defenses against plaintiffs’ prosecution of the above claim. As it has been detailed above through Arguments number one and two (No. I & II) after plaintiffs have filed their motion “Plaintiffs’ Motion For Disburse- ment Of Funds Tendered To The Clerk And Deposited In The Registry Of The Court” and committed a crime by delaying the service of the motion for seventeen (17) days from the postmarked date and after plaintiffs seized the petitioner’s property while the judgment was satisfied by levying petitioner’s bank accounts, it is self explanatory that, petitioner, in order, to present any available document indicative of plaintiffs’ actions, has filed her motions and it is also self explanatory that, plaintiffs have been trying to avoid such motions which have been documenting about their wrong doing. Consequently, on June 27, 2008 plaintiffs have motioned and made a demand that petitioner Dr. Bavargani be banned from litigating the above identified claim any further (see App. 54), the following statement is from this motion “*Plaintiffs’ Motion For Disbursement Of Funds Tendered To The Clerk And Deposited In The Registry Of The Court’ While much of Bazargani’s latest motion is simply incomprehensible (which is nothing but merely a defamatory accusation) Bazargani again appears to claim that there were sufficient funds in her various PNC accounts to fully satisfy the balance of her lability to plaintiffs’ ... when plaintiffs’ effort to garnish Bazargani’s accounts 19 at PNC proved fruitless ... ” while plaintiffs have been trying to avoid any rebuts about petitioner’s ietter of May 7, 2009 which has successfully been faxed to plaintiffs the same day where petitioner personally has informed plaintiffs that she has sufficient deposits to satisfy the judgment (see App. 46-52). The followings are from Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in reference to depriving a petitioner from pursuing her defense. Rule 12, Section 1382 rules as follows: “The district court. possess considerable discretion in dis- posing ... motion to strike redundant, impertinent, immaterial ... because federal judges have made it clear, in numerous opinions they have rendered in many substantive contexts, that ... motions to strike of any of these grounds are not favored and often being considered purely cosmetic or, ‘time waster’”, see Neilson v. Union Bank of California, D.C. Cal. 2003, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1101; see Pessin v. Keeneland Ass’n, D.C. Ky. 1968, 45 F.R.D. 10, 13, and it further rules as follow: “there appears to be general judicial agreement, as reflected in the extensive case law on the subject that, they should be denied and many cause some form of significant prejudice to one or more of the parties to the action” see Lipsky uv. Commonwealth United Corp., C.A. 2d 1976, 551 F.2d 887; see Pena v. Guzman, D.C. N.Y. 2004, WL 253331. Consequently, petitioner Dr. Bazargani_ strongly objects about depriving petitioner from her due process rights of pursuing her defenses against plaintiffs’ above claim. 20 IV. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THIS COURT’S PRIOR RUL- INGS CONFLICT WITH THE OPINION BELOW UPON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY FEES WHILE PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS IN PRO- CEEDING THEIR CLAIM HAVE TOTALLY VIOLATED THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS INVOLVING PETITIONER’S POSTAL PROPERTY The Honorable United States Supreme Court’s supervision becomes necessary because petitioner has been further victimized by plaintiffs being awarded with attorney fees after they have committed crime and have been vexatious in proceeding their claim against petitioner. As it has been detailed above through Arguments number one (No. I) that plaintiffs following filing their motion “Plaintiffs’ Motion For Disbursement Of Funds Tendered To The Clerk And Deposited In The Registry Of The Court” have committed a serious crime and have delayed the service of the motion for seventeen (17) days from the date that it was postmarked which necessitated a response from petitioner by two weeks. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that, in order, to protect the court, the court should impose attorney fees upon any behavior of bad faith. The following Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the entitlement of the attorney fees in 21 litigation: Rule 54.171[2]{clliJ] rules as _ follows: “Liability for fees may be imposed on counsel or litigant who acts in bad faith. When a party acts” in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons, “the court may employ its inherent equitable power to award attorney fees as sanction. Such a fee award is permissible under the bad faith exception to the American Rule, and its purpose is to compensate the wronged party, punish the wrongdoer, and protect the integrity of the court”. See Association of Flight Attendants v. Horizon Air Indus., Inc., 976 F.2d 541, 549 (9th Cir. 1992). 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2503 rules as follows: “American rule” provides that parties to litigation are responsible for their own counsel fees, unless otherwise provided by statutory authority, ... or some other recognized exception. The above identified Rule further categorizes “Right of Participants to Receive Counsel Fees” in ten (10) distinct items involving the different categories of litigation and the item number nine (No. 9) covers the entitlement of the attorney fees in private litigation as follow: “(9) Any participant who is awarded counsel fees because the conduct of the another party in commencing the matter or otherwise was arbitrary, vexatious or in bad faith.”. See Berg v. Georgetown Builders, Inc., 2003 PA. Super 151, 822 A.2d 810 (2003); Thunberg v. Strause, 545 Pa. 607, 682 A.2d 295 (1996); Independent Oil and Gas Ass’n of Pennsylvania uv. Pennsylvania Public Utility Com’n, 804 A.2d 693 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). 22 Plaintiffs have been liable for maliciously abusing the legal process (see App. 18-19), in order to delay the delivery of their service of their motion beyond two weeks, by doing so, plaintiffs have further committed a second crime by violating petitioner’s due process rights involving petitioner’s postal prop- erty (see App. 22). Consequently, petitioner Dr. Bazargani strongly objects to providing such plaintiffs with any reward specially with the reward of attorney fees. On the contrary, pursuant to the above argument petitioner Dr. Bazargani demands for the cost of retaining her attorney (see App. 22). Furthermore petitioner Dr. Bazargani objects to the plaintiff’s supplemental Appendix which has not been a part of the court record and petitioner has not been provided with the copies of it previously and has been introduced while plaintiffs have been filing their Brief. Respectfully submitted, TAWOOS BAZARGANI, M.D., Pro Se 40 Old Lancaster Road Merion, PA 19066 App. l APPENDIX A NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 08-3435 KENNETH SNYDER; JACQUELINE SNYDER V. TAWOOS BAZARGANI; PAUL BAGHERPOUR TAWOOS BAZARGANI, M.D., Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 02-cv-08845) District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) MAY 1, 2009 Before: FISHER, JORDAN AND VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 05, 2009) OPINION App. 2 PER CURIAM Tawoos Bazargani, proceeding pro se, appeals from two post-judgment orders of the District Court.’ For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the July 16, 2008 order of the District Court, and vacate its March 3, 2008 order and remand the matter for further proceedings. In July 2005, following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Bazargani was found to have violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 951, et seg. Appellees Kenneth and Jacqueline Snyder were awarded $40,000 in compen- satory damages from Bazargani and her co-defendant Paul Bagherpour, $30,000 in punitive damages from Bagherpour, and $20,000 in punitive damages from Bazargani. After Bazargani’s motion for a new trial was denied, she appealed, and this Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. See C.A. 05-4051 (3d Cir. June 22, 2007). On December 13, 2007, the District Court awarded Appellees $97,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. ‘ In her notice of appeal, Bazargani indicates that she is appealing from District Court’s July 16, 2008 order denying her motion for reconsideration of its July 2, 2008 order. However, in her informal] brief, she also addresses the March 3, 2008 order of the District Court denying her November 7, 2007 motion for contribution from her co-defendant App. 3 On May 8, 2008, Bazargani’s South Philadelphia condominium unit was sold to Appellee Kenneth Snyder for $160,000 at a Marshal’s sale. The District Court approved the sale and Appellees’ proposed distribution of the proceeds of the sale by order dated May 30, 2008. Pursuant to the Court’s order, the remaining balance of $52,276 after distribution was tendered to Bazargani via a check delivered to her by certified mail. On June 25, 2008, Appellant filed a document in the District Court entitled “Motion to Object and Therefore, to Reject and Return the Plaintiffs’ Attached Check.” The copy of the motion served on Appellees’ counsel included the original check tendered to Bazargani as her proceeds from the Marshal’s sale. On the front and back sides of the check, Appellant wrote: “Not Legally Valid, Refused Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.” In it, Bazargani argued that because the judgment could have been satisfied by the money in her bank account, the Marshal’s sale was unnecessary and should be voided. In its July 2, 2008 order denying the motion, the District Court explained that after receiving a judgment in their favor which was affirmed on appeal, Appellees attempted to satisfy the judgment from funds in Bazargani’s bank account. When they were unable to do so, they levied upon certain real estate which she owned. Bazargani was notified in advance of the Marshal’s sale and had the opportunity to participate in it but chose not to. Having received an amount from the sale in excess of the judgment, Appellees attempted to return the balance to App. 4 Bazargani. As the District Court concluded: “The pending motion reflects Dr. Bazargani’s continued belief that her rights have been trampled upon, but it is quite clear that she is in error. Since the judgment against her has been upheld by the Court of Appeals, since the Marshal’s sale was properly held, and since all issues have been resolved by these previous proceedings, the case is over. The pending motion will therefore be denied.” On July 14, 2008, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration which the District Court denied on July 16, 2008. Appellant timely filed the instant appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Appellant’s motion for recon sideration and her appeal from the District Court’s denial of that motion were both timely filed, we review both the denial of the motion for recon- sideration and the denial of the underlying June 25 motion objecting to the Marshal’s sale. See Jones v. Pittsburgh Nat’l Corp., 899 F.2d 1350, 1353 (3d Cir. 1990). Because the District Court’s denial of 3azargani’s motion for contribution did not become “final” for purposes of this appeal until the District Court had completely disposed of the matter of attorney's fees and satisfaction of the judgment, we retain jurisdiction over that order as well. See Ohntrup v. Firearms Ctr, Inc., 802 F.2d 676, 678 (3d Cir. 1986) In her brief, Bazargani principally argues that she did not receive a copy of Appellees’ January 22, 2008 motion for disbursement of funds until February 8, 2008. She seems to claim that this delay prevented App. 5 her from timely responding to Appellees’ motion However, the docket reflects that Bazargani did in fact object to Appellees’ motion on February 14, 2008, and the District Court explicitly considered her objections in its order of February 28, 2008 granting Appellees’ motion. Thus, it is unclear what the significance of Bazargani’s objection is. Bazargani also argues that Appellees violated her due process rights by conducting a Marshal’s sale of her property rather than collecting the money owed to them from her bank account. However, Bazargani was properly notified of the Marshal’s sale, which was properly held in order to satisfy the judgment against her. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). Accordingly, there is no basis on which to set aside this order. Finally, Bazargani appeals from the District Court’s March 3, 2008 denial of her November 20, 2007 motion for contribution from her co-defendant Paul Bagherpour. The District Court failed to set forth any basis for its denial of Bazargani’s motion. We have held that there is a right to contribution from joint tort-feasors under the Fair Housing Act. See Miller v. Apartments & Homes of New Jersey, Inc., 646 F.2d 101, 110 (3d Cir. 1981). Accordingly, we will vacate the order entered on March 3, 2008 and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Based on the foregoing, we will affirm in part and 5» vacate and remand in part. App 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT KENNETH SNYDER; JACQUELINE SNYDER v. TAWOOS BAZARGANI; PAUL BAGHERPOUR TAWOOS BAZARGANI, M.D., Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 02-cv-08845) District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) MAY 1, 2009 sSefore: FISHER, JORDAN AND VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges JUDGMENT This Cause came to be considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and was submitted pursuant to Third App. 7 Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on May 1, 2009. On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the order of the District Court entered by July 16, 2008, be and the same is hereby affirmed, and the order of the District Court, entered March 3, 2008, be and the same hereby is vacated and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. No costs will be taxed. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court. ATTEST: /s/ Marcia M. Waldron Clerk Dated: May 5, 2009 App. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH SNYDER and > CIVIL ACTION JACQUELINE SNYDER v. TAWOOS BAZARGANI and. PAUL BAGHERPOUR - NO. 02-8845 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Fullam, Sr. J. July 2, 2008 The defendant Tawoos Bazargani has filed a document entitled “Defendant Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s Motion to Object and Therefore, to Reject and to Return the Plaintiffs’ Attached Check,” The document is virtually incomprehensible, but the underlying facts have been established in earlier phases of this litigation. Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against Dr. Bazargani. The judgment was upheld on appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs attempted to obtain satisfaction of the judgment by levying on bank accounts held by PNC, but the bank denied having any accounts in Dr. Bazargani’s name alone. (Apparently, Dr. Bazargani was one of two named depositers at PNC.) Unable to collect their judgment from these bank accounts, plaintiffs levied upon certain real estate owned by Dr. Bazargani. The defendant received notice of the Marshal’s sale, but did not participate. The property was sold for a price in excess of the App. 9 amount of plaintiffs’ judgment, and the balance was returned by the Marshal to Dr. Bazargani (appar- ently, $52,276). The pending motion reflects Dr. Bazargani’s continued belief that her rights have been trampled upon, but it is quite clear that she is in error. Since the judgment against her has been upheld by the Court of Appeals, since the Marshal’s sale was properly held, and since all issues have been resolved by these previous proceedings, the case is over. The pending motion will therefore be denied. An order follows. App. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH SNYDER and > CIVIL ACTION JACQUELINE SNYDER v. TAWOOS BAZARGANI and _ . PAUL BAGHERPOUR > NO. 02-8845 ORDER AND NOW, this 2nd day of July 2008, upon consideration of “Defendant Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s Motion to Object and Therefore, to Reject and to Return the Plaintiffs’ Attached Check,” and plaintiffs’ response,” IT IS ORDERED: That the motion is DENIED. BY THE COURT: /s/ John P. Fullam John P. Fullam, Sr. J. App. 11 JNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 08-3435 Snyder v. Bazargani To: Clerk 1} Motion by Appellant to Reconsider Clerk’s Order Filed February 27, 2009 Granting Ap- pellees Motion for Leave to File Supplemen- tal Appendix The foregoing motion is granted. The Clerk’s order issued February 27, 2009 remains in effect. For the Court, /s/ Marcia M. Waldron Clerk Dated: April 17, 2009 MCW/cc: Thomas E. Groshens, Esq. Tawoos Bazargani App. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH SNYDER and ;: CIVIL ACTION JACQUELINE SNYDER Vv. TAWOOS BAZARGANT and =. PAUL BAGHERPOUR - NO. 02-08845-JF ORDER (Filed Mar. 3, 2008) AND NOW, this 3rd day of March 2008, upon consideration of “Defendant Tawoos' Bazargani, M.D.’s Motion to Demand for Compensatory Damages From Co-Defendant of the Above Claim Pursuant to the Court Order of October 24, 2007” (Document No. 129) and “Defendant Paul Bagherpour’s Motion to Strike Defendant Tawooz Bazargani’s ‘Motion to Demand For Compensatory Damages from Co- Defendant’” (Document No. 131), IT IS hereby ORDERED that the motions are DENIED. BY THE COURT: /s/ John P. Fullam anae ae John P. Fullam, Sr. J. App. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH SNYDER and > CIVIL ACTION JACQUELINE SNYDER Ve TAWOOS BAZARGANI and =: PAUL BAGHERPOUR : NO. 02-cv-08845-JF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Fullam, Sr. J. October 24, 2007 After a jury trial, plaintiffs obtained a judgment against both defendants for compensatory damages in the sum of $40,000, and against the defendant Bazargani for $20,000 in punitive damages. The defendant Bazargani applied for a stay of the judgment pending completion of her appeal to the Third Circuit. Plaintiffs entered into a stipulation with Dr. Bazargani which had the effect of staying the judgment until the Third Circuit rendered its decision. The judgment was affirmed by the Third Circuit, and, apparently, Dr. Bazargani has applied for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. She has now filed a “Objection to Plaintiffs’ Writ Of Execution In Reference To The Judgment Entered Against Defendant In The Above Identified Claim.” She contends, as I understand it, (1) that the previously-granted stay of execution is still in effect; (2) that the plaintiffs are improperly trying to collect App. 14 from her the full amount of the judgment against her ($60,000), whereas she is liable for only one-half of the compensatory award plus the punitive damages, a total of $40,000; and (3) that the property plaintiffs’ have levied upon is worth much more than the amount of the judgment, and that plaintiffs are therefore acting improperly. None of these arguments has merit. Both defendants are jointly and severally liable for the $40,000 compensatory award (If plaintiffs collect the full amount from Dr. Bazargani, she would have the right to seek contribution from her co-defendant for his one-half of the liability.) (emphasis added). The previously-granted stay of the judgment has expired. (If defendant wishes a further stay, she will have to post security to cover her liability.) If defendant’s property is sold at auction to pay off plaintiffs’ judgment, plaintiffs can receive only the full amount of their judgment: any excess would remain the property of Dr. Bazargani. An Order follows. App. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH SNYDER and : CIVIL ACTION JACQUELINE SNYDER Vv. TAWOOS BAZARGANI and .:- PAUL BAGHERPOUR - NO. 02-cv-08845-JF ORDER AND NOW, this 24th day of October 2007, upon consideration of “Defendant Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s Objection to Plaintiffs’ Writ of Execution In Reference To The Judgment Entered Against Defendant In The Above Identified Claim,” and plaintiffs’ response, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The “Objection,” treated as a motion, is DENIED. 2. The defendant Bazargani may obtain a further stay of the judgment until final determination of her pending application to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari only by posting security (in the form of cash or a corporate surety bond) in the sum of $75,000 (to cover the amount of the judgment plus possible accrual of interest until the stay expires). BY THE COURT: /s/ John P. Fullam John P. Fullam, Sr. J. App. 16 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 08-3435 KENNETH SNYDER; JACQUELINE SNYDER Vv TAWOOS BAZARGANI; PAUL BAGHERPOUR TAWOOS BAZARGANI, Appellant On appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 02-cv-08845) District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, McKEE, RENDELL, BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, and VAN ANTWERPEN,* Circuit Judges The petition for rehearing filed by appellants in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court * Vote limited to panel rehearing. App. 17 and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc, is denied. BY THE COURT: /s/ Kent A. Jordan. Circuit Judge Date: June 2, 2009 SLC/ce: Tawoos Bazargani Thomas E. Groshens App. 18 APPENDIX B § 23:117 Pa. R.C.P., Rule No. 1019(b) Malicious abuse of process _ The tort of abuse of process is concerned with a perversion of the legal process, that is, the improper use of process after it has been issued.’ A cause of action exists where the original issuance of the process was justified but the process itself was put to an illegal use and thereby perverted and directed toward a vici.m for a purpose other than that for which the process was designed.” To establish a claim for abuse of process it must be shown that the defendant (1) used a legal process against the plaintiff, (2) primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the process was not designed, and (3) that harm was caused to the plaintiff as a result.” McGee v. Feege, 517 Pa. 247, 535 A.2d 1020 (1987); Garcia Wall & Ochs, Inc., 256 Pa. Super. 74, 389 A.2d 607 (1978) [Omitted In Printing) [Omitted In Printing] [Omitted In Printing} App. 19 Typical forms of abuse of process include extortion by means of arrest or criminal prosecution.’ Seizure or deprivation of property is not an _ indispensable element of the tort of malicious abuse of process. In an action of malicious abuse of process, the plaintiff should aver facts and circumstances which indicate a malicious intentional perversion of the process, whereas in an action of mere abuse of process, the complaint is sufficient if the plaintiff avers the abuse, for example, the unlawfulness of the action taken, and resulting damages.’ Malice may be averred generally. Legal malice is not limited to motives of hatred or ill will, but may consist of a defendant’s reckless and oppressive disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.” [Omitted In Printing] McGee v. Feege, 517 Pa. 247, 535 A.2d 1020 (1987 [Omitted In Printing] [Omitted In Printing] [Omitted In Printing] App. 20 39 § 3001 Postal Service Ch. 30 3. Right to use mails The right to use the mails is a property right which cannot be taken away except by due process of law. Hoover v. McChesney, C.C.Ky.1897, 81 F. 472. The Postmaster General has no power to make any contract or agreement with any corporation, partnership, or individual whereby such party shall enjoy privileges in connection with the use of the mails which are not granted to any other person who complies with the terms interposed upon the party to the contract. 1908, 27 Op.Atty.Gen. 49. ~ 12. Seizure or detention of mail The Postmaster General has no authority to order the detention of mail matter after it has reached its destination and been distributed by the postmaster ready for delivery though there is a well- grounded suspicion that it is or has been attempted to be circulated in violation of law. 1872, 14 Op.Atty.Gen. 143. App. 21 Federal Practice and Procedure (V-5C) § 1382. - Redundant, Immaterial, Impertinent, or Scandalous Matter Federal Rule 12(f) allows the district court to strike, either on proper motion by a party or on its own initiative, any redundant, immaterial, imper- tinent, or scandalous matter in any pleading. os x > However, because federal judges have made it clear, in numerous opinions they have rendered in many substantive contexts, that Rule 12(f) motions to strike on any of these grounds are not favored, often being considered purely cosmetic or 4: “time wasters,” there appears to be general judicial agreement, as reflected in the extensive case law on the subject, that they should be denied unless the challenged allegations have no possible relation or logical connection to the subject matter of the 1¢ controversy [Omitted In Printing} (Omitted In Printing] {Omitted In Printing] [Omitted In Printing] App. 22 § 2675 Costs Ch. 8 Rule 54 Gross negligence or obdurate conduct during the course of an action by either defendant” or plaintiff” also can support a finding of bad faith and justify an award of attorney’s fees. 55. Bad-faith conduct by plaintiff Sanctions were imposed on the basis of the corporation’s subjective bad faith in its presentation of the claim after finding that the corporation deliberately avoided specifying its theories under- lying claim and identified several contradictory statements in the papers related to the claim. Lockary v. Kayfetz, CA 9th, 1992, 974 F.2d 1166. “ [Omitted In Printing] {Omitted In Printing] App. 23 APPENDIX C IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH SNYDER, : CIVIL ACTION et al. : NO. 02-CV-8845 Plaintiff VS. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania € “ ~ 2 e TAWOOS June 14, 2005 BAZARGANTI, et al. Defendants . JURY TRIAL -DAYI BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN P. FULLAM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE And a Jury APPEARANCES: For the THOMAS A. SPRAGUE, ESQUIRE Plaintiff: SPRAGUE & SPRAGUE 135 South 19th Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 For the RONALD H. BEIFELD, ESQUIRE Defendant: 14 East Germantown Pike Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania 19462 Deputy Clerk/ Rosalind Burton-Hoop ESR Operator: Michael Baker App. 24 TRANSCRIBED Drummond Transcription Service BY: Haddon Heights, New Jersey 08035 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording transcript produced by computer-aided transcription service. 11,127] T. Bazargani —Direct * # * BY MR. BEIFELD: Q@. Dr. Bazargani, did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Bagherpour in any way, which brought up the subject matter of prohibiting a tenant, because of their religious background? A. Notat all. Q. Did you have any knowledge at all, that Mr. Bagherpour was asking a question about the religion of the Snyders during the course of this application? A. Not -: all, until — until he told me on Saturday. Q. And when he told you that, what did you — what was your reaction? A. What was my reaction to what? Q. The fact that he mentioned he inquired as tc the religion of the Snyders? A. Okay. The — the question about the religion has come up twice. App. 25 First, it was my — my religion that has come and Mr. Snyder —the first day, immediately after they have walked in to building, he had learned through the meticulous inquiry from Mr. Bagherpour, he has learned my religion, that was the first time. The second time, the conversation that has taken place [1,128) between Mr. Snyder and Mr. Bagherpour, he has reciprocated his question about his religion. THE COURT: Well, that’s nice — @. So, what was your reaction? THE COURT: -— but now, the question is, when did you first learn of that? THE WITNESS: It just was Saturday morning when he told me. BY MR. BEIFELD: Q@. My question, I think was, did you think that was proper or improper or it didn’t make any difference or — what was your reaction to it? A Ah, I thought that he should have not asked. Q. Okay. Fair enough. Why? A. I just didn’t think that the religion has to do anything with renting the apartment. Q. Okay. App. 26 Sd [1,122] A. No. Once he told me that they came to the property and why they were —the filling of the application) — I learned that they have a dog. I said, that is it. Q. So, is it your testimony that no matter what the Snyders would have added to the application, such as the extra deposit and all those other provisions, that would not have changed your mind, is that your testimony? A. Right. THE COURT: Were you made aware that they had offered an extra deposit? THE WITNESS: I don’t remember when I — involved the extra deposit was discussed. But I do remember, I said, no pet, no matter what. BY MR. BEIFELD: Q. No matter what? App. 27 Fri Dec 14 12:56:55 2007 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PHILADELPHIA, PA Receipt No. Cashier stevet Tender Type CHECK Check Number: Transaction Type C Case No./Def No. 1:02-CV-8845 / 0 DO Code Div No Acct 4666 1 604700 Amount $50000.00 $50,000 DEPOSITED INTO COURT REGISTRY BY DEFENDANT, BAZARGANI Fri Dec 14 12:58:13 2007 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PHILADELPHIA, PA Receipt No. Cashier stevet Tender Type CHECK Check Number: Transaction Type C Case No./Def No. 1:02-CV-8845 / O App. 28 DO Code Div No Acct 4666 l 604700 Amount $25000.00 $25,000 DEPOSITED INTO COURT REGISTRY BY DEFENDANT, BAZARGANI App. 29 Certificate of Service I, Thomas E. Groshens, Esq., hereby certify that on this 22nd day of January, 2008, I caused Plaintiffs’ attached Motion for the Disbursement of Funds Tendered to the Clerk and Deposited in the Registry of the Court, together with supporting their Memo- randum of Law and proposed form of Order, to be filed and served via the Court’s ECF system, where the documents are available for viewing and downloading. I further certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, to the following party and counsel of record: Tawoos Bazargani 40 Old Lancaster Rd. Merion, PA 19066 Pro se Ronald H. Beifeld, Esq. 14 East Germantown Pike Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Counsel for defendant Paul Bagherpour /s/ Thomas E. Groshens Thomas E. Groshens App. 30 [POSTMARK JAN 22 2008] FIRST CLASS MAIL LAW OFFICES SPRAGUE & SPRAGUE SUITE 400 THE WELLINGTON BUILDING 135 Ss. 19TH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103-4909 Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. 40 Old Lancaster Road Merion, PA 19066 App. 31 Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. 40 Old Lancaster Road No.406 Merion, PA. 19066 Ms. Anita Hill Post Master 17 Civic Circle Merion Station, PA. 19006 February 9, 2008 RE: Mailing Problems [nvolving The Firm Sprague & Sprague Dear Ms. Hill: I, Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. writing this letter to inform you about a very serious mailing problem involving a mail from the firm Sprague & Sprague which was placed in my mail box yesterday (February 8, 2008) at the above address, and inexplicably the above mentioned mail has been post marked January 22, 2008, that is, it was delivered 17 days past the post mark date. The mail contains a very important legal document which should have been responded within two weeks from the mailing date that is by February 5, 2008. The followings identify the mail exactly as it was addressed: “Law Office, Sprague & Sprague, Suite 400, The Wellington Building, 135 S. 19th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103-4909, To: Tawoos Bazargani, M.D., 40 Old Lancaster Road, Merion, PA. 19066. Please respond myself immediately in writing (a copy of the envelop is enclosed. App. 32 Thanking you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours s/ 'T’. Bazargani, M.D Tawoos Bazargani, M.D MERION STATION FEB 09 2008 USPS 19066-9998 App oo MERION STATION POST OFFICE [LOGO| UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE May 27, 2008 Tawoos Bazargani, M.D 40 Old Lancaster Rd Apt. 406 Merion Station, PA 19066 Ms. Bazargani, I am sending you this letter to make arrange- ments for us to meet and discuss the problem you are having with the mail. Please call me @ 610-664-1484 Monday-Friday 8:00-3:00 Anita Hill Anita Hill Merion Station Post Office OIC MERION STATION, PA 19066-9888 610-664-1484 FAX: 610-664-1938 App. 34 Tawoos Bazargani, M.D 10 Old Lancaster Road No.406 Merion, PA. 19066 Ms. Anita Hill Post Master 17 Civic Circle Merion Station, PA. 19006 June 5, 2008 RE: Mailing Problems Involving The Firm Sprague & Sprague Dear Ms. Hill This letter is in confirmation of our meeting on June 5, 2008, at 12.00 noon in the above identified address, when we discussed about my (Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.) letters addressed to yourself (Ms Anita Hill) and are dated February 9, 2008, March 5, 2008 and April 27, 2008. All above identified letters are about the detailed documentations involving a very serious mailing problems which has led in to very serious violation of Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s postal property. The above mentioned violation has involved a mail which contained a legal paper and was mailed from the law office of Sprague & Sprague which was postmarked as January 22, 2008 but was delivered to Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. (myself) by the mail man on February 8, 2008, that is, seventeen(17) days past the postmark date (see the above mentioned letter of February 9, 2008 where the above identified Post Office was admitted of the above mentioned 17 days delay). The above documented App. 35 mail which was mailed from the law office of Sprague & Sprague and was delivered with seventeen (17) days delay contained a legal paper which mandated a Response by two weeks, that is, by February 6, 2008 and was for disbursement of $75,000.00 which was endorsed by Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s bank. It is self explanatory that, the violation of Tawoos Bazargani, M.U.’s postal property, is a serious risk, including but not limited to her, personally, socially, professionally and economically which necessitates a thorough investigation. Consequently, this letter is _ for clarification of the fact that during our above identified meeting, on June 5, 2008 you, in no uncertain term, clarified that the above documented mail which was mailed from the law office of Sprague & Sprague was delivered to Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s address by the above identified Post Office on the very same day which was received, that was February 8, 2008. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there is any further question. /s/ 'T. Bazargani, M.D. Very truly yours Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. CC: Manager, Consumer Affair App. 36 TRANSMISSION | | VERIFICATION REPORT | TIME _ : 06/09/2008 22:21 NAME: FEDEX KINKO’S 0293 FAX =: 215-561-5346 TEL: SER. # : 000G6J234889 DATE, TIME 06/09 22:20 FAX NO./NAME 16106641938 DURATION 00:01:08 PAGE(S) 02 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM [LOGO] FedEx Kinko's, Office and Print Center Fax Cover Sheet Date June 9,2008 To: Name Ms. Anita Hill Company Post Master Telephone Fax 610-664-1938 _ App. 37 Number of pages 2_ (including cover page) From: Name Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. Company Telephone Comments: Subject: Defendant Tawoos Bazaragni’s Letter of June 5, 2008 to Ms. Anita Hill, Post Master of, Merion Station Post Office In Reference to Post Master’s Clarification That The Mail of January 22, 2008 was delivered on the day that It Was Received Which Was February 8, 2008 App. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH and : Civil Action No. JACQUELINE SNYDER, : 02-8845 Plaintiffs, Vv. . Hon. John P. Fullam TAWOOS BAZARGANI . and PAUL BAGHERPOUR, Defendants. WRIT OF EXECUTION TO THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA: To satisfy judgment, interest, and costs against TAWOOS BAZARGANT, defendant: (1) You are directed to levy upon property of the defendant TAWOOS BAZARGANT and sell her interest therein; (2) Your are also directed to garnish and attach the property of TAWOOS BAZARGANI not levied upon in the possession of PNC Bank, PNC Bank Building, 1600 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, as garnishee; Property to be garnished and attached includes any and all accounts, instruments, or securities, maintained by TAWOOS BAZARGANI at PNC Bank, including but not limited to PNC [Financial App. 29 Account Number Omitted], and to notify the garnishee that: (a) an attachment has been issued; and (b) The Garnishee is enjoined from paying any debt to or for the account of TAWOOS BAZARGANI and from delivering any property of TAWOOS BAZARGANT or otherwise disposing thereof. (3) If property of the TAWOOS BAZARGANI is not levied upon and subject to attachments is found in the possession of anyone other than the named garnishee, you are directed to notify him that he has been added as a garnishee and is enjoined as above stated. Amount Due: $ 87,000 | (Cost to be Added) §$ MICHAEL E. KUNZ Clerk of Court By: /s/ Kim Willams _ 1/23/08 Deputy Clerk Seal of the Court: App. 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH and JACQUELINE SNYDER | Plaintiffs | No. 02-8845 (Received Apr. 17, 2008) Ve TAWOOS BAZARGANI and PAUL BAGHERPOUR Defendants U.S. Marshals Service, 2110 U.S. Courthouse 601 Market Street Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 Dear U.S. Marshal Office: Enclosed please find “Defendar Tawoos Bazargani. M.D.’s Objection To Plaintiffs’ Writ O: Execution Issued On April 7, 2008 (about taking action against defendant’s property at One Christian St. Apt. No-43, Phila.) “the original of which has been filed in the court. CC: Regular Mail Very truly yours ‘s/ Tawoos Bazargani, M.D Date April 17, 2007 Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. 4] Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. 40 Old Lancaster Rd 10.406 Merion, Pa. 19066 Thomas E. Groshens Esquire Sprague & Sprague Suite 400 The Williagton Building 135 South 19th Street Philadelphia, Pa. 19103-4909 April 16, 2008 RE: Kenneth & Jacqueline Snyder v. Tawoos Bazargani and Paul Bagherpour, No.02-8845 Dear Mr. Groshens: Enclosed please find a true and correct copy of “Defendant Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s Objection To Plaintiffs’ Writ Of Execution Issued On April 7, 2008”. The original of which has been filed with the court. Very truly yours /s/ T. Bazargani, M.D. Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. App. 42 Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. 40 Old Lancaster Rd No.406 Merion, Pa. 19066 Mr. Ronald H. Beifeld, Esquire 14 East Germantown Pike Plymouth Meeting, PA. 19462 April 16, 2008 RE: Kenneth & Jacqueline Snyder v. Tawoos Bazargani and Pau) Bagherpour, No.02-8845 Dear Mr. Beifeld: Enclosed please find a true and correct copy of “Defendant Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s Objection To Plaintiffs’ Wnt Of Execution Issued On April 7, 2008”. The original of which has been filed with the court. Very truly yours /s/ 'T. Bazargani,M.D. | Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. [LOGO] PNCBANK PNC Bank Building, 1600 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Re: Tawoos Bazargani MD 40 Old Lancaster Rd. No. 406 Merion PA 19066 June 6, 2008 Dear Tawoos Bazargani MD: Per your request please find the requested balance information for your accounts on May 7, 2008. ACCOUNT ACCOUNT MAY 7, 2008 NAME NUMBER BALANCE Tawoos Bazargani MD Covered for xerox $4,939.12 Tawoos Bazargani MD [Financial Account $405.84 Number Omitted] Fendoon and Tawoos $12,288.25 Bazargani MD Tawoos Bazargani MD $72,932.24 Tawoos Bazargani MD Covered for xerox $4,881.87 Sincerely, /s/ Lisa L. Folks Lisa L. Folks Branch Manager App. 44 AFFIDAVIT I, Mr. Feridoon Bazargani writing this affidavit in reference to my join saving account at PNC bank located at 1600 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsy!- vauia, 19103, account number [Financial Account Number Omitted], in order, to »uthorize my sister Tawoos Bazargani, M.D., to utilize $12,288.23 deposit present in the above identified saving account, in any way and manner that she choose to and to spend the above identified amount for any cause which is feasible to my sister Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s discretion. This authorization follows the prior oral agreement between myself (Feridoon Bazargani) and my sister (Tawoos Bazargani) about authorizing my sister Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. in spending the total of above identified amount present in the above identified join saving account in any way and manner that she choose to and to spend the above identified amount for any cause which is feasible to my sister Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s discretion. I Feridoon Bazargani, make this Affidavit subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date June 27, 2008 Mr. Feridoon Bazargani /s/ F. Bazargani SWORN before me at the Town of Richmond Hill In the Province of Ontario This 30th day of June 2008 /s/ Homayoon Sanayei A Commissioner, etc App. 45 HOMAYOON SANAYE! Barister & Solicitor, Notary Public 330 Highway 7 East Suite 511 Richmond Hill Ontario L4B 3P8, Canada App. 46 Tawoos Bazargani, M.D 40 Old Lancaster Rd No.406 Merion, Pa. 19066 Mr. Thomas E. Groshens Esquire Sprague & Sprague Suite 400 The Willington Building 135 South 19th Street Philadelphia, Pa. 19103-4909 May 7, 2008 You have levied my entire bank accounts which I have in PNC bank at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania because of your claim of the above identified case for a total amount which far exceeds the judgments amounts. Please be advised that my total deposits in PNC bank located at 1600 Market Street, Phila- delphia Pennsylvania suffices the amount subject to levy this claim has been based upon the bank’s its own calculation of total levies which were placed on my accounts and my asset at the bank. Consequently any action taken against my other properties will con- sider the violation of deiendant Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s rights and as harassment against defendant for what the plaintiffs will be he!d responsible for any and all defendant’s consequential camages. kurther, please consider that your cooperation Is expected involving the investigation about the safety of my postal property in reference to your mail of App. 47 January 22, 2008, therefore, the safety involving all aspects of my life Very truly yours s/ T. Bazargani, M.D. Tawoos Bazargani, M.D Certified Mail With Return Receipt No.7007-2560-000 1-5037-985 1 App. 48 | TRANSMISSION | VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 05/07/2008 16:51 NAME FAX TEL SER.# :000F6J94138]1 DATE, TIME 05/07 16:50 FAX NO./NAME 2155616913 DURATION 00:00:36 PAGE(S) 02 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM (LOGO) FedEx Kinko’s_. Office and Print Center Fax Cover Sheet FedEx Kinko’s At The Marriott/Phone: 215-923-2520 Fax: 215-923-2360/1201 Market Street, Philadelphia PA 19107 Date May 7, 2008 Number of pages 2 (including cover page) To: Krom: Name Name Mr. Thomas Groshens Tawoos Bazargani, M.D Company Company Sprague & Sprague App. 49 Telephone Telephone 610-668-1064 Fax 215-561-6913 Comments Defendant Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s Letter of May 7, 2008 to Mr. Thomas Groshen’s Plaintiffs’ | Attorney in Reference to Defen- dant’s Amount Available in PNC ‘ Bank and The Plaintiffs’ Writ of Execution of April 7, 2008. = Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. @ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. @ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. L Article Addressed to: Mr. Thomas E. Groshens Esq. Sprague & Sprague Suite 400 The Willington Building 135 S. 19th St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-4909 2. Article Number 7007 2560 0001 5037 9851 (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811, February 2004 102595-02-M-1540 Domestic Return Receipt ed COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DE App. 50 LIVERY A. Signature X [Illegible] _— 4) Agent (1 Addressee B. Received by IC. Date of Delivery (Printed Name) | Postmark May 12, 2008 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below: 1 Yes 1 No 3. Service Type Xx] Certified Mail LL) Express Mail [] Registered LJ Return Receipt for Merchandise (J Insured Mail LI) C.O.D. | | 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [} Yes App. 51 For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com® | PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 | OFFICIAL USE | —_ | Postage!/$ $0.41 0104 Certified Fee] $2.65 | PHILA PA 19104 ater | #32 M.O.F.W. Return Receipt Fee $9.15 | Postmark (Endorsement Required) Here Restricted Delivery Fee $0.00 MAY 08 2008 (Endorsement Required) a 05/08/2008 USPS Total Postage & Fees|$ $5.21 | Sent To: Street, Apt. No.: or PO Box No. 1358S. 19th St., Suite 400 City, State, Z1P+4 Phila. Pa. 19103-4909 PS Form 3800, August 2006 See Reverse for ae Instructimms BEST AVAILABLE COPY App. 52 Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. 40 Cld Lancaster Rd No.406 Merion, Pa. 19066 Mr. Joel Gold The PNC Financial Service Group One PNC Plaza 249 Fifth Avenue Pittsburg, PA. 15222-2707 May 7, 2008 RE: Kenneth & Jacqueline Snyder v. Tawoos Bazargani and Paul Bagherpour, No.2-8845 Dear Mr. Gold: As you are fully aware the above identified plaintiffs have levied all my bank accounts in PNC Bank. According to the report which I received from PNC bank at 1600 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania as of the above dates my total assets in the bank is about one hundred and two thousand dollars and another eighty five hundred has been transferred to my PNC accounts will be liquidated by next week. This amount exceeds the above identified plaintiffs’ levy which per se is far above the amounts of judgments plus the prior levies including that outrageous amount which you claimed to withheld as the garnishee fees. Very truly yours /s/ T. Bazargani M.D. Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. App. 53 Performance Money Market Account Statement PNC Bank Primary account number: [Omitted In Printing] Page 1 of 2 Number of enclosures: 0 For the period 04/22/2008 to 05/20/2008 FERIDOON BAZARGANI TAWOOS BAZARGANI |Home Address Omitted In Printing] * * Performance Money Market Account Summary Account number: Covered for xerox on Other Deductions Date Amount Description 04/30 5,642.14 Cashier Check/Legal 04/30 1,280.64 Cashier Check/Legal App. 54 Certificate of Service I, Thomas E. Groshens, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 27th day of June, 2008, I caused a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ attached Response to defendant Bazargani’s Motion to be filed and served via the Court’s ECF system, where the document is available for viewing and downloading. I further certify that copies was sent by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Tawoos Bazargani 40 Old Lancaster Rd. Merion, PA 19066 Pro se Ronald H. Beifeld, Esq. 14 East Germantown Pike Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Counsel for defendant Paul Bagherpour /s/ Thomas E. Groshens Thomas E. Groshens App. 55 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH & : CIVIL ACTION JACQUELINE SNYDER > No. 02-8845 v. TAWOOS BAZARGANT, PAUL BAGHERPOUR ARBITRATION AWARD PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 53.2 (Filed Sept. 21, 2004) AND NOW this 20th day of Sept., 04, was the undersigned [Illegible] having been duly certified and sworn and having heard the above captioned civil action on September 20, 2004, do hereby make the following award pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2: We find in favor of the Plaintiffs in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) against the Defendant, Paul Bagherpour, only. We find in favor of Tawoos Bazargani. /s/ (Ilegible] _ /s/ {Iegible] Chairman Arbitrator s/ Cheryl [{legible| Arbitrator App. 56 NOTICE This award will become a final judgment of the court without the right of appeal, unless a party files with the court a demand for a trial de novo within thirty days after the entry of the arbitration award. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386017_0945%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.