Motion-Secondary: PATRICK KELLY VS. SHANE CLARIDGE KELLEY, AS EXECUTOR OF THE THOMAS F. et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                wv

ELECTRONICALLY

FILED
PATRICK KELLY Superior Court of California,
3790 El Camino Real, #1009 County of San Francisco
Palo Alto, CA 94306 09/05/ 2017
(415) 769-9524 Clerk of the Court
mailforpatkelly@gmail.com BY:EDNALEEN ALEGRE
Plaintiff, In Pro Per Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
(Unlimited Jurisdiction)
PATRICK KELLY, Case No.: CGC-13-535823
Plaintiff, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
7 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
vs. SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY
SHANE CLARIDGE KELLEY, AS EXECUTOR| “DJUDICATION
t al, :
ee Hearing Date: September 20, 2017
Defendants. Location: Dept. 302
, Time: 9:30 a.m.
Reservation No.: 06260920-04
Plaintiff Patrick Kelly responds as follows to Defendants’ Separate Statement:

DEFENDANTS’ ISSUE NO. 1: Plaintiffs First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract Fails,
Because the Citizenship Contract was Never Reduced to Writing as Required by Cambodian Law,

Which Applies to the Question of Whether the Citizenship Contract had to be in Writing.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE: Cambodian Law Does Not Apply — Evidence shows no intent to
perform the Citizenship Contract in Cambodia or any other specific country when it was made. The

contract was agreed to in Thailand and mainly performed by a wide margin outside of Cambodia.

In this Statement Defendants repeat facts that appear unrelated to what they are trying to prove in
the individual issue sections. The only purpose for this appears to be an attempt to insinuate there
must have been something illegal about the Citizenship Contract without directly saying so. This
necessitates Plaintiff establishing throughout this Statement that the Citizenship Contract was legal
as well as bringing forth evidence about Plaintiff’s state of mind that shows the intent of the

contract was to force US prosecutors to adhere to the rule of law that mandates extradition.

-1-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

ne Material Facts
1. | In February 2005, Plaintiff met UNDISPUTED: Note: For the first time in this
with White, who was at the time case, Defendants admit as an undisputed material
imprisoned in Thailand, and fact that in February of 2005, Plaintiff and White
entered into the Citizenship entered into the Citizenship Contract. Defendants
Contract. note in their Memorandum of Points & Authorities
. : (Footnote | p.3); “For the purpose of this motion,
Supporting Evidence: Request for
ae Le and for no other purpose, the Estate accepts
Judicial Notice in Support of
7 Plaintiff's allegations as true, and thus the Plaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment, or
: a allegations regarding the Citizenship Contract are
in the Alternative, Summary
UL 7 presented in this motion as undisputed.” - However,
Adjudication (“RJN”); Declaration
: Pee 7 it is unclear whether that extends to this Statement
of Britt Evangelist in Support of
7 of Undisputed Material Facts and if so to which
Motion for Summary Judgment, or
z : particular allegations regarding the Citizenship
in the Alternative, Summary
Seat Contract. Plaintiff submits that representing
Adjudication (“Evangelist Decl.”),
. 7 disputed facts as undisputed within a Statement of
Ex U (Verified First Amended
soa . Undisputed Material Facts renders Defendants’
Complaint in this action, §22).
Statement unusable for the purpose for which it is
intended within a Summary Adjudication or
Summary Judgement motion.
2. || At the time of their meeting, DISPUTED: At the time of their meeting, Plaintiff

Plaintiff resided in Thailand and
had since 2004.

Supporting Evidence: Declaration
of Geoffrey Rotwein in Support of

Motion for Summary Judgment, or

in the Alternative, Summary

was in Thailand on a temporary visa that required
him to leave Thailand within 90-days. During
February 2005 and since 2004 Plaintiff did not hold
residency status in Thailand as defined by Thai
immigration law and therefore was not a resident of
Thailand. Plaintiff had a California Drivers License

and maintained a California address and was

-2-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

ne Material Facts

Adjudication (“Rotwein Decl.”), registered to vote in California throughout his

Ex. B (Defendant_Thomas White’s | temporary stays in Thailand and all times related to

Form Interrogatories — this case.

General (Set One) to Plaintiff, No.

2.5(b)); Rotwein Decl., Ex. C (P. Supporting Evidence: Temporary 90-day Thai Visa

Kelly Response to Defendant’s in Plaintiff's US passport for the period February

Form Interrogatories — General, Set | 2005; Page from Defendants’ investigative report on

One, No. 2.5(b)) Plaintiff acquired by Plaintiff from Defendants
during discovery that shows Plaintiff's had a valid
California Drivers License at the time Plaintiff
entered into the Citizenship Contract with White
(Exhibit “AA” p.311); 90-Thai Visa and Plaintiff's
California Drivers License valid from 11/27/06 —
8/12/2011 (Exhibit “AA” p.312).

3. | At the February 2005 meeting, UNDISPUTED: To be clear, Plaintiff proposed

Plaintiff proposed to White that he
(Plaintiff) believed he could obtain
a second citizenship for White, but
any such efforts “could not go
through regular channels but could
only succeed by approaching the
highest government officials
possible and possibly heads of

state.”

Supporting Evidence: RJN;
Evangelist Decl., Ex U (Verified

this to White at the meeting when the contract was
made (Contract Formation Meeting). Plaintiff met
with White on at least 20 separate occasions during
February of 2005 many of which involved
discussions about the progress of the citizenship
project after the Citizenship contract was agreed to.
Plaintiff is not sure if there is something relevant
here that Defendants are trying to show or how not
obtaining citizenship through “regular channels” is
related to the Citizenship Contract not being in
writing, but if it is that not going through regular

channels calls into question the legality of White’s

Fae

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

First Amended Complaint in this
action, 22); Evangelist Decl., Ex. J
(TX of 1/24/13 opening statement
by P. Kelly, 220:02-220:15).

citizenship then Plaintiff responds by saying that
generally heads of state have the power to grant
citizenship and if they decide to do so that
citizenship is legal citizenship even if it was
acquired by not going through regular channels. For
example in cases like Angelina Jolie being granted
Cambodian citizenship by Royal Decree in 2005
and Thomas Frank White being granted Cambodian
Citizenship by Royal Decree in 2006, heads of state
had reason to believe these individuals were
deserving of citizenship because they will benefit

the state and its citizens.

Supporting Evidence: People Magazine Story —
“Angelina Jolie Gets Cambodian Citizenship”
(Exhibit “CC” p.320); Letter from Brigadier
General Nhean Vibol congratulating White on being
awarded Khmer nationality along with his expressed.
hope that White will make additional investments in
Cambodia, particularly directed towards helping

poor Cambodian people (Exhibit “BB” p.314).

At the February 2005 meeting,
Plaintiff told White that he
believed “the country where White
stood the best chance of acquiring

citizenship would be Cambodia.”

DISPUTED: Plaintiff did not tell White that he
believed “the country where White stood the best
chance of acquiring citizenship would be
Cambodia” until weeks after the Contract Formation
Meeting that took place early in February 2005.

Cambodia was not discussed until after the contract

-4-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

Supporting Evidence: Rotwein
Decl., Ex. F (Defendant Thomas

White’s Special Interrogatories
to Plaintiff (Set Three), No. 239);
Rotwein Decl., Ex. G (P. Kelly
Responses to Special
Interrogatories from Defendant to

Plaintiff, Set Three, No. 239(f) p.3).

was made and after Plaintiff had more fully
researched which countries White stood the best
chance of gaining citizenship in which was one of
his first tasks after the Contract Formation Meeting.
As clearly stated in all of Plaintiff's complaints in
this and the previous case, the Citizenship Contract
the parties entered into at the Contract Formation
Meeting did not specify any country or countries
Plaintiff would approach for citizenship but only
stipulated that White would have the right to
approve the countries that would be approached.
Bottom line is there was no intent to perform the
contract in Cambodia or any other country when the

contract was made.

Supporting Evidence: Original Complaint in
CGC09-494198 Exhibit “C” p.59:2-4; Original
Verified Complaint in CGC13-535823 Exhibit
“E”p.87:9-11; Instant Verified First Amended
Complaint Exhibit “I” p.179:6-7; Evangelist Decl.,
Ex. J (TX of 1/24/13 opening statement by P. Kelly,
p. 220; Rotwein Decl., Ex. G (P. Kelly Responses to
Special Interrogatories from Defendant to Plaintiff,
Set One, Page 7 first paragraph; General
Interrogatories Set One Exhibit “EE” p.341
no.50.1(b)(1-3).

-5-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

Problems With Defendants’ Evidence: Interrogatory

#239 does not limit Plaintiff's responses to the
Contract Formation Meeting and instead asks
Plaintiff to recite things said about the contract
during the entire month of February. Plaintiff's
Responses to Special Interrogatories Set Three
clearly specifies that the answers given refer to
statements made “on or about February 2005.” If
Plaintiff wrote Cambodia instead of saying in a
country of White’s choosing he was not referring
specifically to the Contract Formation Meeting but
rather subsequent meetings that occurred during the
month of February 2005 or after. Plaintiff saw no
reason to differentiate between what was said at the
Contract Formation Meeting and what was said after
White’s decision to pursue Cambodia that occurred
on or around February 25, 2005. Also, Plaintiff
states on p.5 of his response; “The above statements
are not exact quotes but rather general recollections
of things that were said.” (Rotwein Decl., Ex. G (P.
5:17-19) Kelly Responses to Special Interrogatories
from Defendant to Plaintiff, Set Three, No. 239). If
the decision to pursue Cambodia had been made at
the Contract Formation Meeting, Plaintiff would
never have described that contract as referring to an
unnamed “country” which he consistently did in all

the complaints in this and the previous case as well

-6-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

as in most other statements made describing things

said during the month of February 2005.

Relevant Fact: There was nothing in the contract
that limited the number of countries Plaintiff could
apply to and therefore no possible intent to perform
the contract in Cambodia when it was made. Other
countries were still under consideration after
Cambodia was selected (Exhibit “O” p.226-251)
and right up until just before Cambodia granted
citizenship (Exhibit “FF” p.345). The contract
term that White would have the right to choose the
country or countries he wanted to apply to

obviously does not indicate a place of performance.

Supporting Evidence: Exhibit “O” p.226-251;
Exhibit “FF” p.345

At the February 2005 meeting,
Plaintiff told White that if White
moved his multimillion dollar
charitable foundation from Mexico
to Cambodia that “could open the
way” to him acquiring citizenship

in Cambodia.

Supporting Evidence: _Rotwein
Decl., Ex. F (Defendant Thomas

DISPUTED: At the Contract Formation Meeting
Plaintiff only told White that if he moved his
charitable foundation from Mexico to a another
country, that could help “open the way” to him
acquiring citizenship in that country, The decision
to pursue citizenship in Cambodia did not occur
until in or around February 25, 2005 which is the
date Plaintiff took Thai attorney Supat Skonchai to

meet White at the jail.

Cael

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

White’s Special Interrogatories to
Plaintiff (Set Three), No. 239);
Rotwein Decl., Ex. G (P. Kelly
Responses to Special
Interrogatories from Defendant to
Plaintiff, Set Three, No. 239(b));
Evangelist Decl., Ex. J (TX of
1/24/13 opening statement by P.
Kelly, 220:02-220:15).

Supporting Evidence: Original Verified Complaint
in CGC13-535823 (Exhibit “E” p.87:23-24 (i);
Active Verified First Amended Complaint (Exhibit
“I” p.177:4-7 and p.179:16-18 (i)); Evangelist
Decl., Ex. J (TX of 1/24/13 opening statement by P.
Kelly, p. 220.

Problems With Defendants’ Evidence: Plaintiff's

Opening Statement is entirely consistent with the
understanding there was no intent to perform the
contract in any particular country when the contract
was made.” E.g. (p.220 Recounting what Plaintiff
said to White at the Citizenship Contract Formation
meeting): “I think it's possible to convince
principals in another country that you are innocent
of these charges and that, in fact, you're a good guy
who could potentially be a valid citizen, an asset as
a citizen to their country, and that his proven
generosity in setting up foundations and funding
those foundations to tunes of over $10 million was
something that I could take to the country and say if
-- if he is granted citizenship, he's going to bring a
lot of money into your country and he's going to
use a portion of that to assist the poor.” Clearly if
the decision to apply for citizenship in Cambodia
had already been made at the Contract Formation
Meeting, Plaintiff would not have used the words

"another country” “their country” “the country”

-8-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

“your country” if he was referring to Cambodia.

At the February 2005 meeting,
White agreed to move his charitable
foundation from Mexico to

Cambodia.

Supporting Evidence: Rotwein
Decl., Ex. F (Defendant Thomas
White’s Special Interrogatories to
Plaintiff (Set Three), No. 239);
Rotwein Decl., Ex. G (P. Kelly
Responses to Special

Interrogatories

DISPUTED: At the Contract Formation Meeting
White only agreed to move his charitable
foundation from Mexico to a country willing to
grant him citizenship. White did not agree to move
his charitable foundation from Mexico to Cambodia
until almost a year after the Contract Formation

Meeting though he never actually did so.

Supporting Evidence: Original Verified Complaint
in CGC13-535823 (Exhibit “E” p.87:23-24 (i);
Active Verified First Amended Complaint (Exhibit
“T” p.177:4-7 and p.179:16-18 (i); Evangelist
Decl., Ex. J (TX of 1/24/13 opening statement by P.
Kelly, p. 220.

Problems With Defendants’ Evidence: Interrogatory

#239 does not limit Plaintiff's responses to the

Contract Formation Meeting. Plaintiff's Responses
to Special Interrogatories Set Three that Defendants
rely upon as proof of what was said at the Contract

Formation Meeting clearly specifies that the

-9-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

answers given refer to statements made “on or
about February 2005”. If Plaintiff wrote Cambodia
instead of saying in a country of White’s choosing
he was not specifically referring to the Contract
Formation Meeting. Also, Plaintiff states on p.5 of
his response; “The above statements are not exact
quotes but rather general recollections of things that

were said.”

At the February 2005 meeting,
White agreed to a “budget” of $1

million for the project.

Supporting Evidence: Rotwein
Decl., Ex. F (Defendant Thomas
White’s Special Interrogatories to
Plaintiff (Set Three), No. 239);
Rotwein Decl., Ex. G (P. Kelly
Responses to Special
Interrogatories from Defendant to

Plaintiff, Set Three, No. 239(g)
p.2).

UNDISPUTED: During the Contract Formation
Meeting Plaintiff asked White how much of a
budget he would provide for the project. White
responded with $1 million dollars. When asked,
White clarified that the $1 million did not include
the expense of Plaintiff's bonus which would only
be paid after and if Plaintiff succeeded in acquiring

legal citizenship and a passport for White.

At the February 2005 meeting,
Plaintiff stated that his
performance of the Citizenship
Contract would be complete when
he acquired “a passport for White
that contained a Thai visa from the

Thai embassy in Cambodia which

DISPUTED: As done throughout their Statement
of Undisputed Facts, Defendants refuse to specify
which February 2005 meeting they are referring to.
Plaintiff met with White at least 20-times during the
month of February 2005. At the Contract
Formation Meeting that occurred during the first

week of February, Plaintiff stated that it would be a

-10-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

would confirm the validity of the

passport.”

Supporting Evidence: Rotwein
Decl., Ex. F (Defendant Thomas

White’s Special Interrogatories to
Plaintiff (Set Three), No. 239);
Rotwein Decl., Ex. G (P. Kelly
Responses to Special
Interrogatories from Defendant to
Plaintiff, Set Three, No. 239(i));
Evangelist Decl., Ex. J (TX of
1/24/13 opening statement by P.
Kelly, 220:24-22 1:08).

good idea to test White’s new passport to make sure
it was valid before White tried to use it. After some
discussion, it was agreed that Plaintiff's
responsibilities would be complete when he took
delivery of White’s new passport containing a valid
visa issued by a different country than the one
White obtained citizenship in. The decision to
apply for a Thai visa at the Thai Embassy in
Cambodia was not made until over a year after the
Contract Formation Meeting and only after it
became apparent that Cambodia was going to grant

White’s request for citizenship.

Supporting Evidence: Original Verified First
Amended Complaint (CGC13-535823) (Plaintiff
Exhibit “E” p.87:9-11 (d)); Active Verified First
Amended Complaint (Plaintiff Exhibit “I”
p-178:17-18 (d)); General Interrogatories Set One
Exhibit “EE” p.341 no.50.1(b)(3).

Problems With Defendants’ Evidence: Evangelist

Decl., Ex. J (TX of 1/24/13 opening statement by P.
Kelly, 220:24-221:08). At 220:16 Plaintiff
proceeds what follows with the statement; “So the
short story is...”” Thereafter the timeline of
Plaintiff's recollections jumps around to various
periods during the entire period of performing the

citizenship contract and was clearly not meant to

-ll-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

ne Material Facts
identify what was specifically said during the
Contract Formation Meeting.
9, || At the February 2005 meeting, UNDISPUTED: No mention of Cambodia

White told Plaintiff that if Plaintiff

succeeded in obtaining the second | Related Facts: Defendants’ own evidence in the

citizenship and passport, White previous complaint could not be clearer that White

would buy appellant “a brand new} would chose the country he wanted to apply for

Mercedes S-500 as a bonus.” citizenship in and therefor that choice had not been
made when the contract was formed.

Supporting Evidence: RIN,

Evangelist Decl., Ex U (Verified Supporting Evidence: Original Complaint in first

First Amended Complaint in this case (CGC09-494198 (Exhibit “C” p. 58:2-4);

action, 24) Rotwein Decl., Ex. “A” p.3 No. 8 — (First Amended
Complaint For Damages — Dec 22, 2011)
“... WHITE agreed to pay KELLY a substantial
bonus if KELLY succeeded in gaining citizenship
for WHITE in a country of WHITE’s choosing.”

10. || At the February 2005 meeting, UNDISPUTED

Plaintiff told White that he

(Plaintiff) preferred the cash

equivalent of the car, and White

agreed that Plaintiff's bonus would

be the cash equivalent, $350,000.

-12-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

Supporting Evidence: RJN,
Evangelist Decl., Ex U (Verified
First Amended Complaint in this

action, 24(j)).

Plaintiff and White agreed that the
Citizenship Contract would not be
in writing and it was never reduced

to writing.

Supporting Evidence: RJN,
Evangelist Decl., Ex U (Verified

First Amended Complaint in this

action, §[24(1), | 25, 4] 48).

UNDISPUTED: To be clear, White was the one
who insisted the contract should not be in writing
after Plaintiff suggested something like he would
write something up. White said he was concerned
because all documents that required his signature
had to first be reviewed by prison officials before
being submitted to him for his signature and that he
believed if knowledge of the citizenship project got
out prosecutors in the US would take steps to
prevent him from obtaining citizenship. White also
told Plaintiff that he did not need to worry and
could trust him to keep his word. Plaintiff believed
White was being sincere and based on that agreed
not to put the agreement in writing. Plaintiff also
surmised that he would have possession of White’s
passport when his bonus became due and therefore
he could withhold the passport if White failed to

pay the promised bonus.

12.

At the time of contracting,
Plaintiff's understanding and
belief was that the laws of

California would govern the

UNDISPUTED: And the same applies to Thomas

White’s understanding.

-13-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

Citizenship Contract.

Supporting Evidence: RJN,
Evangelist Decl., Ex U (Verified

First Amended Complaint in this
action, § 16); Evangelist Decl.,
Ex. K (P. Kelly deposition TX,
48:02-51:16).

13.

Plaintiff and White never actually
discussed what laws would govern

the Citizenship Contract.

Supporting Evidence: Evangelist
Decl., Ex. K (P. Kelly deposition
TX, 48:02-51:16).

UNDISPUTED: To clarify. there was no need to
state the obvious or discuss something that was
already intuitively understood. Both Plaintiff and
White fully expected the contract would be binding
and could not make such a determination based
upon Thai, Cambodian or Mexican law that neither
was familiar with. If White wanted Thai or
Cambodian law to apply to the contact he would
have said so when the contract was made. He made
no such statement and if he did Plaintiff would have
thought he was crazy because it would not have
made sense. Additionally, in spite of vigorously
arguing that proper venue for this contract in the
previous case (CGC09-494198) was not in
California, White never once stated he believed
foreign law governed the contract which would
have greatly supported his wrong venue arguments.
White submitted two declarations in support of

change of venue motions where it is reasonable to

-14-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed

ne Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

conclude that if White actually intended the
contracts he entered into with Plaintiff were
governed by foreign law he would have stated that
to support his declarations. He made no such
statement because White obviously never intended
that. What’s more, at no time before his death did
White ever state anything that opposed Plaintiff's
claims detailed in the complaint that California law
governed their contractual relationship. White’s
silence on this issue and refusal to personally go on
the record to dispute Plaintiff's claims that
California law governed their contracts throughout
the entirety of the previous case is very telling and
should rightfully be viewed as an admission by
White that he never intended foreign law would
govern any of the contracts the parties entered into.
Plaintiff argues it is simply inconceivable that the
parties to two separate employment bonus contracts
entered into while they temporarily in Thailand and
Mexico would want those contracts governed by the
laws of different countries neither was familiar
with. Common sense says with 100% certainty that
Plaintiff and White fully understood their contracts
would be governed by the California laws they were
both familiar with when they entered into those

contracts.

Supporting Evidence: Original Complaint in

-15-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

previous case (CGC09-494198) Exhibit “C” p.61
no. 20; White declaration Exhibit “A” p.10-11;
Plaintiffs statements that both he and White
intended that California law would apply to all their
contracts that White never attempted to dispute with
evidence or claims he intended foreign laws to
apply. Original Complaint in this case Exhibit “E”
p.83 no.17; Active Verified First Amended
Complaint Exhibit “I” p.174-175 no.16.

14.

Plaintiff and White were never in
California in connection with the

Citizenship Contract.

Supporting Evidence: Evangelist
Decl., Ex. K (P. Kelly deposition
TX, 50:03-50:18 and 233:07-
236:04).

DISPUTED: Plaintiff traveled to San Francisco on
multiple occasions; (1) to pursue evidence of
White’s innocence which was a necessary part of
attempting to acquire 2nd citizenship for White; (2)
to meet with Dr. Kao on issues related to obtaining
Cambodian citizenship for White; (3) to meet with
White’s attorneys to update them on progress of the

Citizenship Project or Project 1 as it was called.

Supporting Evidence: Plaintiffs email describing
his meeting with the Attorney General of Cambodia
(Dr. Kao) in Long Beach California Exhibit “N”

p.220 3" paragraph.

Problems With Defendants’ Evidence: Does not

address or explain Plaintiffs and Defendants’ own
evidence that Plaintiff performed portions of the

Citizenship Contract while he was in California.

-16-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

15.

After entering into the Citizenship
Contract, Plaintiff traveled to
Cambodia on seven occasions
between March 2005 and May
2006 to perform the Citizenship

Contract.

Supporting Evidence:_Evangelist
Decl., Ex. J (TX of 1/24/13

opening statement by P. Kelly,

221:09- 221:12); RIN; Rotwein
Decl., Ex. H (P. Kelly Separate
Statement from the 2009 case, 4]

30)

UNDISPUTED: To be clear, if this proves
anything it proves that out of the four countries
Plaintiff spent time performing the Citizenship
Contract, he spent the least amount of time in
Cambodia since he was only there on 7-occasions
during the full 15-months it took to acquire White’s

Cambodian citizenship.

RELATED FACTS: The Citizenship Contract was
made the first week of February 2005 and
completed on June 15, 2006. It took a full 15-
months of intense ongoing negotiations to complete.
Unanticipated circumstances such as White being
extradited from Thailand to Mexico and more
resulted in additional complications that all had to
be addressed and dealt with outside of Cambodia.
After White was extradited to Mexico, Plaintiff was
forced to bring the Attorney General of Cambodia
to Mexico so he could personally meet White over
several days and establish for himself that White
was of good character and innocent of the charges
against him. Seven trips to Cambodia is a mere
drop in the bucket compared to the dozens upon
dozens of meetings over more than a year that
Plaintiff attended. Those included meetings with
Dr. Kao, Supat and the various agents that occurred
outside of Cambodia. And that doesn’t include all

the frequent meetings to update White at the jails in

-17-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

ne Material Facts
Thailand and later Mexico on the Citizenship
Project where Plaintiff would take White’s
instructions on how to proceed on that project. The
dozens upon dozens of face to face meetings with
various parties in Thailand, Mexico and the US to
bring the Citizenship Project to a successful
conclusion conclusively establishes that the project
was not primarily performed in Cambodia.
16. | The purpose of Plaintiff's trips to UNDISPUTED:
Cambodia was to meet with
various parties in the process of
attempting to acquire citizenship
for White.
Supporting Evidence: Evangelist
Decl., Ex. K (P. Kelly deposition
TX, 108:11-108:20).
17. | During those trips, Plaintiff met DISPUTED: Defendants describe Plaintiff's

with various Cambodians whose
names he can no longer recall, the
King of Cambodia’s brother and
other members of the King’s
family, and Robert Kao (“Dr.
Kao”).

Supporting Evidence: Evangelist
Decl., Ex. K (P. Kelly deposition

inability to recall Cambodian names with no
relationship to English so it appears as though
Plaintiff is not being entirely forthcoming. Plaintiff
explained that he was never able to recall the names
of Cambodians he met in Thailand and Cambodia
because they were foreign names with little or no
resemblance to English. Plaintiff already has
enough trouble remembering names he can

pronounce. Nothing sinister or evasive here.

-18-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

ne Material Facts
TX, 108:21-109:21).
18. | Plaintiff also hired an attorney to DISPUTED: This is technically not correct since

assist him who had some knowledge} White was the one who retained and paid Supat

of Cambodia. Skonchai for his services. After interviewing
several attorneys in Thailand to provide legal

Supporting Evidence: Evangelist | assistance for the Citizenship Project, Plaintiff

Decl., Ex. J (TX of 1/24/13 decided Supat was qualified to assist him. He then

opening statement by P. Kelly, took Supat to the prison to meet White where White

221:12-221:13). agreed to Supat’s fees and retained him. The
decision to seek Cambodian citizenship came after
White hired Supat and was partly based upon
Supat’s advise that it would probably be easier to
get 2" citizenship in Cambodia than it would be for
White to get it in Thailand which were two of the
finalist countries Plaintiff was considering when
White hired Supat.
Supporting Evidence: Retainer Agreement Exhibit
“U” p.264 “...if Supat is successful in acquiring a
legal and valid passport for Mr. White from
Cambodia or any other country whose passport is
recognized in Thailand...”

19, | In Cambodia, Plaintiff also met with} UNDISPUTED:

a group of “high ranking”

Cambodian military officials, who

claimed to have connections to

-19-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

individuals who were in the position!

to grant the request for citizenship.

Supporting Evidence: Evangelist
Decl., Ex. K (P. Kelly deposition
TX, 109:21-111:21); Evangelist
Decl., Ex. J (TX of 1/24/13 opening
statement by P.

Kelly, 221:14-221:21).

20.

During these trips to Cambodia,
Plaintiff was given the VIP
treatment including a military

escort.

Supporting Evidence: Rotwein
Decl., Ex. F (Defendant Thomas

White’s Special Interrogatories to
Plaintiff (Set Three), No. 239);
Rotwein Decl., Ex. G (P. Kelly
Responses to Special
Interrogatories from Defendant to

Plaintiff, Set Three, No. 239(d) p.
).

DISPUTED: It is not clear what Defendants are
trying to show by this fact but if it is that there was
something sorted or suspicious in this then Plaintiff
replies that nothing in this fact evidences
wrongdoing. Plaintiff and Supat attended the 7-
meetings in Cambodia together where they were
only given the VIP treatment when meeting with
the first group of people that included high ranking
military officials and members of the Kings family.
That same VIP treatment extended by the first
group was not extended in the three subsequent
trips for meetings with the Attorney General of

Cambodia, Dr. Kao.

RELATED FACTS: During the initial meetings
with various groups of mainly travel agencies that
Plaintiff approached based upon claims they had the

necessary connections to have White granted

-20-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

citizenship, the very first thing Plaintiff would make
crystal clear to everyone was that he was not
interested in becoming involved in anything illegal
and that White’s citizenship had to be 100% legal.
This was followed by Plaintiff's statement that the
best way to assure everything was legal, above
board and did not even give off the appearance of
anything illegal was to structure the fees so they
were heavily weighted towards being contingent
upon success. This would also help assure White
was not ripped-off in an area of the world that was
filled with scams designed to part gullible victims
from their money where almost everyone claimed to
have close friends in high places. One of the travel
agencies Plaintiff approached claimed they had
connections with high ranking Cambodian military
officials who if convinced White was innocent of
the charges against him, might be able to support
his bid for citizenship. In order to prove their
power within the Cambodian government, Supat
and Plaintiff would be treated like dignitaries when
they arrived for meetings by commercial airliner
into Phnom Penh, the capitol of Cambodia. The
looks received from Plaintiff's fellow passengers
and Cambodian customs agents as he and Supat
were met and escorted by soldiers around, instead
of through customs were highly memorable. On

one occasion, while they were sitting having coffee

-21-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

at an airport café with the soldiers guarding the
group of Cambodian VIP’s Plaintiff and Supat were
part of, Plaintiff tried to excuse himself to go to the
bathroom. A high-ranking official snapped his
fingers and motioned for some of the soldiers to go
clear out the men’s bathroom. After Plaintiff
entered two soldiers stood guard at the bathroom
entrance to prevent others from going in. Though
all of this was very impressive, when this group
began demanding that Plaintiff give them 3,000,000
baht (roughly $90,000 US) as a gesture of good
faith, Plaintiff countered with a demand that before
he would take such a request to White for his
approval he would need to have a face to face
meeting with Prime Minister Hun Sen to establish
that he would be willing to consider granting

White’s request for citizenship.

21.

Plaintiff also made several trips to
Cambodia to meet with the Prime
Minister at the request of the

military officials, but the meeting

never took place.

Supporting Evidence: Evangelist
Decl., Ex. K (P. Kelly deposition
TX, 109:25-111:21).

DISPUTED: It was Plaintiff who requested the
meeting with the Prime Minister and not military
officials. After three scheduled trips were cancelled
due to the unavailability of the Prime Minister after
Plaintiff and Supat flew to Cambodia for those
meetings, Plaintiff informed the agent who had.
provided the contracts that he was no longer willing
to continue with this group because Plaintiff had
lost faith that they could assist White in gaining

legal citizenship. Plaintiff further stated that these

-22-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

events forced him to consider applying for
citizenship in another country.
Supporting Evidence: Exhibit “O” p.226-227 Last

sentence in first paragraph.

22.

Plaintiff paid $187,000 to “people
in Cambodia” who assisted
Plaintiff with obtaining the
citizenship, primarily by
introducing Plaintiff to the
Cambodian Attorney General, Dr.

Kao.

Supporting Evidence: Evangelist
Decl., Ex. K (P. Kelly deposition
TX, 137:06-143:07); Evangelist
Decl., Ex. J (TX of 1/24/13 opening
statement by P. Kelly, 222:06-
222:07).

DISPUTED: Plaintiff made a payment of
6,500,000 Thai baht in Bangkok Thailand not
Cambodia and it was paid to the agent whose office
was also located in Bangkok. Though the agreed
amount for the project was 7,500,000 Thai baht, an
early payment of 800,000 baht was approved by
White and Plaintiff negotiated a reduction of the
total amount by |-million baht due to White’s
additional risk of agreeing to make an advanced
payment before being granted citizenship. So the
final payment amount was 6,500,000 baht which
equals $168,831 US dollars. (On June 12, 2006 $1
US dollar = 38.5 Thai baht which equals $168,831
US dollars.) Payment was made after White was
granted citizenship and after related citizenship
documents were given to Plaintiff in accordance
with the success contingency payment agreement
Plaintiff and White had agreed to. That payment
included all costs related to obtaining citizenship
and a passport for White on an expedited basis but
did not include any of Plaintiff's expenses or any of
the donations White made to buy rice for flood

victims etc. The parties understood when making

-23-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

the success contingency agreement that White being
granted Cambodian citizenship along with a valid
passport would be a difficult undertaking
considering White’s legal problems including the
fact he was in prison. It was understood that it
would require a lot of work convincing people in
high places including the King and Prime Minister
not only of White’s innocence but also that White
would turn out to be a good Cambodian citizen who
would continue his established philanthropy by
helping Cambodia’s poor. Plaintiff understood the
payment was distributed to the various agents in
Thailand and Cambodia who performed various
tasks that assisted in obtaining legal citizenship for
White. Plaintiff also understood the payment
included some amount for providing an introduction
to Dr. Kao whose assistance was instrumental in
supporting White’s application for citizenship.
Plaintiff wants to make it perfectly clear that the
7,500,000 baht amount ($195,000US) he negotiated
with various agents to obtain expedited legal
citizenship for someone in White’s circumstance
was way far below what one would reasonably
expect a person of White’s wealth to pay for
something he needed so badly. Not only was that
amount low, Plaintiff worked hard to negotiate that
amount based upon a success contingency payment

that he saw as necessary to keep White from being

-24-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

ripped off in a part of the world that was famous for
that. One of the negotiating points Plaintiff used to
keep fees so low was the importance of not giving
off the appearance that White was bribing any
officials into granting him citizenship since his
citizenship would surely undergo intense scrutiny.
The selling point Plaintiff used with government
officials including Dr. Kao and others was that
White was an innocent man who was the victim of
an international conspiracy centered in the US to
extort money from wealthy elderly gay men by
falsely accusing them of child sex crimes and that
White was a good-hearted elderly man with an
established record of philanthropy who would
become a great benefit to the poor of any country
that was lucky enough to call him a citizen.
Looking back on this, not only did I accomplish the
impossible for White, I did it at a bargain basement
price. For example, the feeding frenzy surrounding
White during the time I acquired Cambodian
citizenship for him, bilked him out of something
over $7-million dollars in legal fees alone whose
only tangible results were that he would not regain
his freedom and would pay a $10,000,000
settlement purportedly to keep him from losing his
entire fortune.

Supporting Evidence: Exhibit “HH” p.368 Bottom

Shane’s email to Stuart Hanlon offering $4 million

-25-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

dollar hotel in lieu of $1,600,000 in fees; Project 1
(Citizenship Project) 6.5 million baht payment
approved by White (Exchange rate $1=38.5 Thai
Baht = $168,831US taken from Bangkok Bank
historical exchange rates) — Exhibit “FF” p.347;
Documents in Hand. Project Completed — Exhibit
“FF” p.348 first sentence; Official letter expressing
hope White will assist Cambodia’s poor -Exhibit
“BB” p.316; Email relating that King of Cambodia
said people like White are good for Cambodia
Exhibit “II”p.373 first paragraph.

23.

Plaintiff then began to meet and
work with Dr. Kao on the project
and Dr. Kao assisted Plaintiff in
acquiring the Cambodian

citizenship.

Supporting Evidence: Evangelist
Decl., Ex. K (P. Kelly deposition
TX, 109:08-109:13); Evangelist
Decl., Ex. J (TX of 1/24/13 opening
statement by P. Kelly, 222:06-
222:13).

DISPUTED: The payment referred to in No. 22
was not made until almost a year after (not before)
Plaintiff met and began to work with Dr. Kao and
only after Plaintiff took possession of original
copies of White’s official citizenship documents
along with his new passport containing an approved
visa in accordance with the terms of the Citizenship
Contract. Only three meetings with Dr. Kao
occurred in Cambodia while dozens of other
meetings occurred over a period of over 1-year
between Dr. Kao and Plaintiff while both were in

Thailand, Mexico and the US.

Supporting Evidence: Citizenship Documents
given to Plaintiff by agent in Bangkok - (Exhibit
“BB” p.314-318).

-26-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

RELATED FACTS:

Plaintiff showed Dr. Kao recantations from White’s
purported Mexican accusers (Two recantations
shown to Dr. Kao - Exhibit “V” p.266-270) who
said they had never even met Mr. White but only
signed on to the complaint because they were
bribed to do so by an attorney from San Francisco
named David Replogle. Plaintiff explained how
evidence showed that Replogle and his original
client Danny Garcia were engaged in an
international conspiracy to extort money from
wealthy elderly gay men by accusing them of
having sex with underage boys with the expectation
they would benefit financially after the bogus
claims settled out of court. Replogle and Garcia
represented their scheme to the FBI and
international press as their moral crusade against
pedophiles which provided them with notoriety and
fame. Among other victims of this scheme who
were accused of being pedophiles that Plaintiff
knew of in Thailand, Mexico and the US was one
individual who rather than settle with Replogle
hired an attorney to defend against the false
accusations. Replogle dropped that case after
Danny Garcia and another involved party gave a
Declaration exposing Replogle’s scheme after they

had had a falling out over money with Replogle.

-27-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

Plaintiff regularly updated Dr. Kao on whatever
evidence he uncovered that supported White’s
innocence since that helped bolster his bid for
citizenship. Part of that evidence came to light after
Daniel Garcia first telephoned Plaintiff out of the
blue in early 2006. Garcia said that he and
Replogle had had a falling out and that he wanted to
come over to White’s side and tell everything he
knew about the conspiracy to extort money from
White. Garcia said he had gotten Plaintiff's
unlisted number in Thailand from the FBI who he
regularly spoke with about White. In the weeks that
followed, though Plaintiff worked hard to obtain
evidence from Garcia that potentially could have
seen White released from prison, White’s attorneys
were reluctant to speak with Garcia and in fact
refused to do so until Plaintiff suggested White hire

a separate attorney to take Garcia’s evidence.

About a month after Garcia phoned Plaintiff,
Replogle also phoned Plaintiff out of the blue and
said he could unwind all the charges against White
if he and White could reach some type of financial
arrangement. When Plaintiff pressed him about
exactly what he had in mind, Replogle said he could
not discuss it over the phone but would do so ina
face to face meeting. After hearing this, White

instructed Plaintiff to fly to California and meet

-28-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

with both Garcia and Replogle which Plaintiff did.
During meetings with Garcia, Replogle and a third
party, Plaintiff learned of what he believed was a
creditable threat to have White killed in prison in
order to clear the way for the settlement they
believed White’s heirs would not oppose. After
meeting with the FBI in San Francisco and
reporting the threat against White’s life, Plaintiff
immediately flew to Mexico and met with the
prison director to convey the information about the
threat against White’s life and that one of White’s
personal prison guards was on Replogle’s payroll.
The prison took extra steps to assure White’s safety
including transferring the noted guard so he would

have no direct contact with White.

Dr. Kao, who had worked for the U.N. for years
before becoming Attorney General of Cambodia
was sympathetic to White’s situation. Dr. Kao also
understood from an international perspective how
the US was attempting to force its particular set of
Christian based views of sex and morality upon the
rest of the world. This was done through recently
enacted US sex tourism laws that effectively
criminalized sex for everyone under 18-years on a
global basis whenever an American was involved,
even though age of consent in most other countries

was less than 18. Plaintiff likened White’s situation

-29-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

to the hysteria that surrounded the 1980s McMartin
preschool case before it was discovered that no one
had engaged in sex with any of the children. In that
case, like in White’s case there were wild
accusations flying around about secret tunnels
leading from White’s school to his Mexican hotel
that like the McMartin tunnel accusations, turned
out not to be true. Plaintiff also informed Dr. Kao
that one of White’s main accusers in the press,
Bruce Harris of Covenant House who had publicly
stated that White was accused of sexually abusing
67-boys had turned out not to be the protector of
children he professed to be. That totally
unsubstantiated claim catapulted Harris into the
international press though he later wound up being
fired from his position as director of Casa Alianza
in 2004 after allegations surfaced about his sexual
misconduct with minors under his care at that non-

profit home for children.

Tn 2012, after the 2007 Mexican Appeal Court
decision found White innocent of the charges he
was extradited to Mexico to stand trial for, even
more compelling evidence surfaced that White was
the victim of an international extortion conspiracy.
David Replogle and Danny Garcia who had led the
crusade against White for over 10-years were

convicted of murdering Clifford Lambert, a wealthy

-30-

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS — CGC-13-535823wv

No.

Defendants’ Alleged Undisputed
Material Facts

Plaintiffs Response and Supporting Evidence

elderly gay man in Palm Springs in 2008. They
were sentenced to life in prison without parole
along with others who participated in their grand
scheme. In Lambert’s unfortunate situation, the
defendants decided to escalate their extortion
scheme from false accusations of child abuse to
murder after realizing they could get far more
money from Lambert by assuming his identity and
killing him. SF Weekly Story - Exhibit”I