Sunday, September 10, 2006

Demurrer and Motion to Strike Baker's Sham Answer

On or about August 2, 2006, I filed and caused to be served a verified complaint for libel and slander against Defendant Thomas J. Baker. Although properly served, Baker disputed his service. Despite his erroneous contentions, he filed an answer with the Court on or about August 25, 2006. In fact, Baker served me with two answers, one via substitute personal service on or about August 28, 2006 and another via certified mail on or about August 31, 2006. Neither answer contained a proof of service, as required by the California Code of Civil Procedure.

The first answer contained over 200 pages, mostly exhibits from this SAVE SMC blog. The second answer contained no exhibits whatsoever, and was inconsistent with his first answer. In a good faith attempt to meet and confer to clarify these two answers, Baker shot back emails to me, in which he erroneously contended that I was harassing him and even went so far as to threaten police intervention, which is his obvious way of circumventing issues that need to be addressed.

Accordingly, on or about September 7, 2006, I filed my Demurrer and concurrent Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer. I included a Request to Take Judicial Notice as well as a Joint Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of my two motions. The motions are set to be heard in Department 16 of the Los Angeles Superior Court at 9:00 a.m. on November 9, 2006. However, while at the Court, I decided to view the files on record. It was confirmed that not only did Defendant Baker fail to file any proof of service with the Court, but he went so far as to file a third answer with the court that did not match either of the two answers served to me.

Again, I emailed Defendant Baker, who has now gone into hiding. I view the filings of his answer with this Court and the service of the two alternate answers on me as completely in bad faith. Accordingly, I will now be forced to file yet another motion before this Court in which Baker will be hard pressed to explain his allegedly fraudulent sham pleadings. Add to this that Baker has allegedly lied under penalty of perjury in his verified answer, and it doesn't look too good for Baker at this point. Hopefully the Court will see through Baker's deception and grant the appropriate relief, including striking his entire answer.

-- Des Manttari,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP

Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL:

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home