APPELLANT DIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
MICHAEL P. MELLEMA | Court of Appeal No. 18-AD-000034
Plaintiff / Appellant |
|
Vs | Trial Court Case 16CLJ01063
|
MICHELE D. FRIEDMAN |
TODD M. FRIEDMAN |
Defendants / Respondents |
________________________ |
Appeal From Amended Judgment After Trial
Of The Superior Court, County of San Mateo
Hon. V. Raymond Swope
APPELLANT’S REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION
Michael P. Mellema, in pro per
708 Plymouth Way
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-343-3307
[email protected]
Appellant
Self-RepresentedRespondent’s Counsel continues to exist in his own version of Trumpism and alternative reality and facts. He believes he can make false, misleading and discredited claims with impunity. This is an appeal based on civil penalties for violations of the criminal code. He claims the complaint was dismissed by the District Attorney for cause. In fact, the District Attorney failed to access the subpoenaed documents that are the major evidence to Respondent’s false claim for an insurance payment. This complaint only proceeded after the Appellant obtained those documents. They represent 45% of the exhibits attached to the Opening Brief. The District Attorney may intervene at any time sufficient evidence is provided. Law and Motion Judge Richard DuBois said there is sufficient facts to support a cause of action for insurance fraud against these defendants. There is far more evidence now than when the District Attorney declined to intervene.
I. AMENDED JUDGEMENT AFTER TRIAL
Respondent’s counsel claims that Respondent is entitled to recover personal expenses not included in the denied legal fees and expenses. In fact, Counsel filed a fraudulent Memorandum of Costs. None of the cited expenses were paid by Respondent, Michele Friedman. Counsel cited $630 in filing and motion fees and $333 in travel to court costs.
According to the Court’s on-line case files, a grand total of $1,101.20 of filing fees was allocated to the Friedmans. The record shows that Ryan Greenspan made two payments on July 5, 2017 for a total of $870.00. An additional $141.20 was paid by Greenspan in September 2017 and another $90.00 by McNamara Law. None of the Court’s records show any payment by Michele Friedman. Since Greenspan made these payments, they are part of the legal fees and expenses denied at Trial.
Travel expenses are also fraudulently stated. Counsel shows five trips to Court at between $65 to $68 per trip. The first two trips were not attended by the Friedmans. Only Greenspan attended by traveling from his office in Pleasant Hill, some 52 miles from Court. Counsel did not provide any evidence on how these costs were determined. While the Friedmans did attend the Settlement Conference and two trial days, the travel costs are still only appropriate for Greenspan’s commute. The Friedmans live in Burlingame, only nine miles from Court.
The entire corrupt intent of the Amended Judgement is not to reimburse Ms. Friedman, but to harass and punish Appellant for filing a legitimate insurance fraud compliant. He did not file an objection believing the Court would realize the fraud and reject the Amendment. Counsel also failed to provide any documents as evidence of Ms Friedman’s expenses. The Appellant will insist on seeing copies of any and all receipts, canceled checks and mileage calculations. Filing a false statement or document with the Superior Court is a felony.
It should be noted that Greenspan did not have standing to request reimbursement of legal costs as the Friedman’s liability insurance policy with USAA Casualty Insurance covered it all. Greenspan does not represent USAA and they are not currently a party to this litigation.t
II. DEFENSE COUNSEL MISCONDUCT
The corrupt defense is demonstrated by the false and misleading statements in Counsel’s Trial Brief that was not provided to Appellant until five minutes before Trial. Court rules require that it be provided to Plaintiff at least seven days before Trial and allow an opportunity to object to it’s contents. This amounts to an unethical ambush strategy where the Plaintiff is unable to provide any rebuttal. Appellant cites a dozen false statements that were intended to prejudice the Court before Trial. In his response, Counsel fails to address or contradict any of the allegations. Lying in papers filed with the Court shows a contempt for the Court and is a felony.
Counsel stated that because discovery requests were not properly presented, there was no obligation to respond. This ignores that C.R.C 3.724 requires parties to meet and confer to resolve issues of discovery.
Appellant was lead to believe that he could summarize the evidence and rebut the many false statements in the closing argument. Unfortunately, a review of the transcript shows that there was no closing summation. Appellant presented sufficient evidence to justify a ruling in his favor. Defense Counsel actually provided no evidence that Plaintiff was responsible for causing the alleged damage. There was never an explanation of how transferred white paint on an unbroken taillight could come from Plaintiff’s black bumper.
In testimony, Ms. Friedman falsely claimed:
She took defensive driving actions;
The two driveways are directly opposite each other (see Appendix);
That she was in the sloped driveway that allowed her bumper to be lower:
That she switched to her higher cost regular mechanic.
Defense Counsel failed to provide any evidence to support her false testimony. There are no photographs, satellite maps, graphics, or invoices to show prior repair history that support her claims. There is no evidence that the lower spoiler repair, added by the USAA’s Arizona employee-adjuster, had any damage as the revised estimate and invoice claims.
That Plaintiff did not provide evidence that the properties are not directly across from each other was because Counsel never disclosed that Ms. Friedman would make such an outrageous claim. She indicated that she was familiar with the street and her statement was part of Counsel’s ambush. There is plenty of evidence available to prove she lied and that she backed up recklessly causing the bumper contact.
Todd Friedman clearly lied with a smile when asked what estimates (plural) he had at the time of his June 5, 2015 phone message. He answered that he had one from Chilton’s Body Shop which was not created until June 15, 2015. Like Ms. Friedman and Counsel, he also claimed that they had a history of dealing with the higher cost repair shop. In fact, the Friedmans were told by USAA to switch. Subpoenaed documents held by the Records desk in the Clerks Office will be delivered to the appeals hearing and expected to prove that Counsel and both Respondents lied about any previous history with the higher cost repair shop.
III. CONCLUSION
Appellant has provided an abundance of evidence of fraud, perjury and conspiracy while Respondents and Counsel have provided virtually no evidence. The Appellant Court should find in Appellant’s favor and vacate the false Amended Judgement After Trial. Since the Statute of Limitations has not passed, the District Attorney should be advised to review the evidence.
IV. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Rule 8.204(c) of the California Rules of the Court, I hereby certify that this brief contains 1,244 words, including footnotes. In making this certification, I have relied on the word count of the computer program used to prepare the brief.
Date: December 21 , 2018
S/ ____________________
Michael P. Mellema
APPENDIX
- Google satellite map
- Zillow.com satellite map
- View from 708 Plymouth Way driveway
- View from 711 Plymouth Way driveway
- Memorandum of Costs
NOTE: On May, 15, 2019, Trial Court Affirmed a Remittitur vacating the Amended Judgement.