Preview
MUA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Apr-11-2013 3:23 pm
Case Number: CUD-13-644474
Filing Date: Apr-11-2013 3:22
Filed by: WESLEY G. RAMIREZ
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04015019
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
NASIR PATEL VS. MARK THOMAS EDWARDS
001004015019
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.27
28
he DD
Fe oy Gest, GUNS
Sepey ut Gan Francisco
6
MARK EDWARDS wae
In Propria Persona APR id
2048 Polk Street #303
San Francisco, CA 94109 aK OET COURT
CLE!
415.240-0191 ae
BY: Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COURTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CaseNo.: GUD -13 -GuU4TY
Ex — PARTS
MOTION TO QUASH/ DISSMISSAL/ STAY
OR WRIT FOR MANDAND/PROHIBITION
AND MEMORANDUM-IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT EDWARDS DECLARATION
NASIR PATEL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARK EDWARDS, ~
Date: April 14, 2013
Time: 44 HO
Location: 400
Hearing Judge: Ronald E. Quidichay
Date Action Filed: February
Trial Date: April 22, 2013
Defendant
JfBhtCATE/
MOTION TO QUASH/ DISSMISSAL / STAY OR WRIT FOR PROHIBITION
MEMORANDUM
THE DEFENDANT MARK EDWARDS, by and under MOTION TO QUASH/ DISSMISSAL.
OR / STAY WITH ATTACHMENT OF WRIT FOR PROHIBITION CHALLENGES both the plaintiff
And court’s absent of right to legal jurisdiction Code of Civil Procedure Section 418.10-418.11 and fraud
under California Anti “Slapp Law” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 96) Code of Civil
Procedure section 425.16 in this pending civil matter hereof pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section|
1167.4(a) and California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1327(a).
Further defendant Edwards Challenges procedural constitution violations and abuse of discretion
to place restrains on/ and over his liberty in the voidance of exercise of constitution requirements by relax
Municipal Policies and conduct. That such infringement address whether owed “fundamental fairness”
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE
SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION
& EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.127
28
was adequately applied regarding due process safeguard under equal protection. United States
Constitution Amendment Article I, §8, Article 8 and Article14,
The defendant addresses the issue of intentional procedure practice of “farce and sham’ scheme
luring him into responsive tactical means of “Unfair Competition” transparent deceptive cloak of the law
denying him of both procedural safeguard and owed fundamental “fairness and impartiality” of the
judicial process in pending matter at cause also by means of Ex-Communication.
See Civil Code §1709 and California Code of Judicial Ethics ~ Canon(s) 1-6
A. Prejudicial Effect Shows that plaintiff lack jurisdiction:
Under legal authority of Rule 3:100 (g) California Rules of Court the presiding justices maintain
Full discretional disclosure of records on both sides of parties to a controversial dispute and where failure
Of compliance by a party is not in compliance with statutory requirements then the cause of dispute is
moot due to lack of jurisdiction entitlement.
In the herein civil matter plaintiff was and remain in procedural default which was unlawfully
waived, showing none “effective service” was adequately meant entitling the defendant to a motion for
dismissal. The presented irregularities as challengeable technicalities were procedurally by means induce
force and fear coming from the bench. (See Attached files in Declaration)
[Venner v. Michigan Central Railroad Company 271 U.S. 127, 46 S. Ct. 444, 70 L. Ed. 868
(1926)] . lack of jurisdiction or want of jurisdiction is a legal preposition challengeable regarding existing
irregularities “effecting the outcome” toward fundamental fairness. California rules of Court, Rule G and
Code §415.40 of California Civil Procedure.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS NON-WAIVEABLE
The requirements of POS-010 Proof of Service of Summons service must be attached to the complaint
Personal service means summons and complaint was personally served on the defendant. They have 5
days to respond. For example, if the defendant gets the summons and complaint on the Ist, the 5-day
period to respond starts on the 2nd and ends on the 6th. You can file for default on the 7th.
Filing the Unlawful Detainer Complaint
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE
SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION
& EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.2*Clerk will keep original complaint and return copies with a file stamp on them.
+The Clerk will stamp court seal on one summons for each defendant — this is now the original and
“conform” (i.e., date stamp) the other copy for your file.
Serving the Summons and Complaint
+A copy of the summons and complaint must be served on each resident/party to the action
+Also serve prejudgment claim of right of possession
*Completed proof of service of summons will be filed with original summons
Serving the Summons and Complaint
-Who can serve? Any non-party over 18.
Exception: Prejudgment claim of possession
*Service methods — same as three-day notice
-When is service effective?
(Personal service (2-3 attempts)- date served
© Substitute — 10 days after mailed
OPost and Mail- 10 days (Court permission)
Prejudgment Claims of Possession
Must be served by Marshal, Sheriff, Registered Process Server
*Requires all unnamed occupants to come forward
+Form to use: CCP Section 415.46
Occupant has 10 days to file claim and five days after that to file a response to the complaint.
“If claim is filed, eviction is put on hold and court hearing held within 5-15 day to determine claim. If
upheld, owner must start over ~ naming the additional occupant; if not — unlawful detainer proceeds.
This was not a “harmless error” by Plaintiff Nasir Patel and therefore defendant motion for
dismissal demurrer was appropriate and denied not being within Municipal Compliance with its own
standards of rules. (See Attached files in Declaration)
. (See Venner v. Michigan Central Railroad Company 271 U.S. 127, 46 S. Ct. 444, 70 L. Ed. 868 (1926)
and Snow v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.2d 787 (9" Cir. 1977))
B. Pleading of a Fraudulent Cause within means of California Anti Slapp-Law/ Fraud:
Inadvertently can be draw that plaintiff and his agent did enter into a written agreement and
forfeit On the agreement after defendant handing them his payment for his monthly residential
occupancy, he Request for a copy of the written agreement he signed though reluctantly was never
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE
SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION
& EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.3provided one though Promise on would be placed in his control mail slot in the hotel clerk office on
August 29, 2012.
From that point on plaintiff and his agents reluctant to provide the defendant one in “bad faith”
Ignoring him each time he requested a copy being in non- substantial compliance with Califomia
Consumer Protection Act which entitling him the right of right to disclosure of the condition of hotel
facility under pre-contractual negotiation, plus access to entitled copy of contract entered.
On September 18, 2012 Plaintiff with his agent still acting in “bad faith” muscle defendant
Edwards out of additional $1000.00 deposit on top of his August 29, 2012 $500.00 means of force and
fear and intimation by means of committed fraud, compelling him to pay deposit or move which
defendant Edwards was compelled to use the Service of San Francisco SRO Collaborative
Agency. (See Attached files in Declaration)
Legal Position:
Ifa default was entered, a motion to quash service may be combined with a motion to set aside the
default. A defendant may also bring a separate motion to set aside a default on the ground of a mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. [See Code of Civil Procedure §473(b).] The proposed
answer or other pleading must accompany the motion to set aside. [See Code of Civil Procedure
§473(b). ] see Puryear v Stanley (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 291, 293-295; but see Job v Farrington (1989)
209 CA3d 338, 340-341 (substantial compliance if filed before hearing).
Earlier cases have upheld actions for abuse of process involving allegedly improper collection practices
without addressing the applicability of the litigation privilege. (See, e.g., Barquis, supra, 7 Cal.3d at pp.
103-104 [collection agency's alleged practice of filing actions in multiple improper venues]; Kappel v.
Bartlett, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1463-1467 [process server's filing false declaration of service of
process to obtain default judgment]; Czap v. Credit Bureau of Santa Clara Valley (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d
court record history of dealing with unlawful detainers show this was not a “harmless error” on both his
and the court.
Such interpret can only be drawn that plaintiff herein took the position of circumventing the legal
process system to elude his obligated position at San Francisco Rent Board to avoided due settlement
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE
SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION
& EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.427
28
entitlements which he owed defendant for decrease in services and premises liability injuries incurred to
defendant Edwards. That Retaliatory efforts to void payments on his behave resulted in the circumventing
owed costs and expenses “out of the pocket” of defendant Edwards which the plaintiff has neglect to
reimburse. (See attached Declaration)
C. The Legal Ground for Dismissal
Under a investigating team of legal analysis made discovery — show invite or initiation of errors
was judicial over looked against their “prejudicial effects” depriving defendant herein of his right to
procedure fundamental “fairness.”
That such errors presented grounds of arguable technicalities “grossly over looked” by the acting
magistrate presiding over the case management and assignment of civil case actions for jury trial.
That a unethical and illegal violation regarding “abuse of discretion” warranted that the defendant
Edwards case be dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction at his March 18, 2013 motion hearing consisting of a
Motion for Dismissal/ Strike or Stay of Proceedings which was unlawfully denied. And his April 15,
2013 Motion for Demurrer which was also illegally procedurally waived and denied also on March 18,
2013. (See Attached files in Declaration)
The legal team further investigation “exposed” unlawful and/or in volunteer waiver of defendant’s
constitutional safeguard of procedural rights was a gray gross miscarriage of justice within the
fundamental sense of deprived Equal Protection and owed Due Process not afforded.
D. Legal Ground for Writ For Prohibition — Abuse of Discretion
On March 18, 2013 when defendant Edwards attempt to address with objection to his position of
the matter and grounds of illegalities, the court abused its discretion in silencing him, and compelling him
to unlawfully respond (answer) to a complaint which “lack jurisdiction” within a time period of 5 days
upon receiving the courts order by mail under peer pressure of intimidation and coercion coming from the
bench which defendant Edwards only complied to order through means of coercion,
(See Attached files in Declaration)
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE
SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION
& EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.5See Judicial Council Governance Policies
a. The Judicial Council acts as a governing body for the judicial branch to ensure the statewide
administration of justice by supporting the California courts and assisting them to provide equal and
timely access to an independent and impartial justice system for all Californians.
b. The Judicial Council ensures that justice on a statewide basis is properly administered, the work
of the California courts is coordinated, and the judicial branch functions efficiently and effectively.
The council supports the development and dissemination of innovations and best practices
consistent with judicial branch goals
E, Unfair Competition by means of Deceit
1. The defendant waited exactly 4 days for receipt of the Court’s Order by mail, which either the
plaintiff Obstruct/ or Interfered with the legal process by withhold defendant’s residential mail, or the
order was never forwarded. Code §17200 of California Business & Profession and Civil Code §1709
Further the defendant Edwards never waived his right to receive adequate notice by the court
which was further waived by plaintiff and his agents by means of Obstruction/ or I!legal Interference
through mail restriction control by plaintiff and his agents at Broadway Hotel Clerk Office.
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Citing - Pioneer Electronics v. Superior
Court (2007), 40 Cal.4th 360
2. The defendant being harassed and stalked using legal facilities restricting his legal preparation|
and defense under an well organize buddy system. (See Attached files in Declaration)
3. Until this day defendant has been ex-communicated of receipt of any Court correspondence,
except Citing - Beeman y. Burling (1990)216 Cal. App. 3d 1586 [265 Cal. Rptr. 719]
4. The illegal exposure of unlawful obtainment of confidential information of defendant and
posted it near his residential door of hotel by Plaintiff and his Agent’s for harassment and intimidation
purposes and creative atmosphere of emotional hardship.
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE
SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION
& EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.6AB 363 (Steinberg) Whistleblower protections.
F, Lack of Jurisdiction/ or Want of Jurisdiction Under Fraud Complaint Filed
Under Code §413.40 of California Civil Procedure A party of interest is prohibit in engaging in
acting as Service Processor, 07-8-9418 Muhammad v. Newark Housing Authority, Third Cir. (per
curiam) (8 pp.) (March 2013)
By the plaintiff attempt of circumventing the legal system in waiving a pending City and County
Commission “Evidentiary Hearing” for remedy administrative exhaustion purpose of his own default was
acalculated tactical choice avoiding of San Francisco Rent Broad Hearing of January 15, 2013 and
March 26, 2013 relating to own settle plaintiff is in debt to defendant.
Legality Claim at Issue
Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal. App.3d 1457, 1464, 246 Cal. Rptr. 815 (citing Judicial Council of Cal.
com., 14 West's Ann. Code Civ. Proc. (1973) ed.) 413.10, p. 541, and 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed.
1985) Jurisdiction, 84, p.454and Olson v. Arnett (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 59 citing Navellier v. Sletten
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 96
REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW ENTITLE JUSTICE TO BE MET:
The Defendant hereof seek this court to direct presented “Argumentative Grounds” for
Remedy Relief Sought To Issuance of Motion To Quash/Dismiss/ and or Writ For Mandate as set
forth: Richmond y. Dart Industries, Inc. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 869, 879 .)
1. Dismiss is mandatory under the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling for No Jurisdiction/70 L. Ed. 868
We hold that the dismissal for want of jurisdiction was right.
2. Issuance of Writ For Mandate holds constitutional standard of law concerning raise issues of
“Discretionary Abuse by Inferior Court Non-compliance with United States Constitutions, as
non-compliance with harmony of California Code of Judicial Ethics - Canons 1- 6.
3. The Court is with obligatory discretion in compliance with “procedural direction” or any existing
“admissibility issues” tending to show prejudice or owed protected right violated which has
constitutional effects of infringement upon the defendant’s right.
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE
SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION
& EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.74. Constitution Prohibition of Third Parties of Interest of illegal interference with the process system!
of a defendant rights to fundamental fairness protected or solicit exposure of information that
would cause or create a prejudicial effect regarding the outcome.
5. Plaintiff was not entitled to repetitious use his (“employee”) as associate with the cause/or party
to his Trust business: the service of Summon must be a valid license party without an interest in
the service of plaintiff business. Such Complaint is invalid and shal] constitution violation of
defendant rights to due process and equal protection clause.
6. Where defendant act or in volunteer respond to a court order/ demand lacking jurisdiction by
means of intimidation or coercion by means of “Unfair Competition and Deceit” pursuant
Code §17200 of California Business & Profession and Civil Code §1709
7. California Slapp Law Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 entitles defendant challengeable
grounds of a fraud complaint imposing inequitable expense upon the county and state,
8. It is further an imposed interference as of matter of law to restrict or cause defendant to suffer
deprivation access to the court under his Faretta Rights FARETTA v. CALIFORNIA, 422 U.S.
806 (1975) in violation of defendant Edwards 6" Amendment.
GRANT PRAYER DIRECTING ORDER FOR MOTION TO QUASH/ DISMISSAL/ WRIT FOR.
MANDATE/ PROHIBITION BEGRANTED TO DEFENDANT WITH IMPOSED SANCTIONS
FOR AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AWARDS ON GROUNDS OF BAD FAITH
Dated this ape, 2013
MARK THOMAS EDWARDS
In Propria Persona — Litigant
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE
SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION
& EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.8POS-040
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
| Mark Edwards
2048 Polk Street #303
San Francisco, CA 94109 _
TELEPHONE NO. 415.240-0191 FAX NO. (Optional): . D
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): 1 nit
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Pro Se. sypeic & out ca uN ia
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY oF SAN FRANCSICO County
street avoress: 400 McAllister Street 44 i 43
MAILING ADDRESS APR
CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Francisco, CA 94109 ‘T
BRANCH NAME: CLERK TH COUR
Boe ay clerk
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Nasir Patel BY: i ‘Deputy Ciel
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Mark Edwards ‘CASE NUMBER:
PROOF OF SERVICE—CIVIL CUD-13-644474
‘Check method of service (only one): =
[= By Personal Service 7) By Mail By Overnight Delivery woot CawalS 6 .Quidic. ye 7
(1 By Messenger Service [7] By Fax By Electronic Service DEPT. vol
(Do not use this proof of service to show service of a Summons and complaint.)
1. At the time of service | was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
2. My residence or business address is: % Me Box Holla, San Firancteery a g4l4o
3. The fax number or electronic service address from which | served the documents is (complete if service was by fax or
electronic service):
4. On (date): April//, 2013 | served the following documents (specify): //
3 A + e . i
1) Application and Notice of MOT in sMowi CN For Order to Quash Ex Parte/D iserisstl jet Ned e,
* Soho Ts,
1)Ex Parte For Motion To Quash° .
1) SUPPORTIVE DpECaraTioN = ENG EO)
¥ | The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service~Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-040(D)).
5. | served the documents on the person or persons below, as follows:
a. Name of person served:
b. (Complete if service was by personal service, mail, overnight delivery, or messenger service.)
Business or residential address where person was served:
c. (Complete if service was by fax or electronic service.)
(1) Fax number or electronic service address where person was served:
(2) Time of service:
The names, addresses, and other applicable information about persons served is on the Attachment to Proof of
Service—Civil (Persons Served) (form POS-040(P)).
6. The documents were served by the following means (specify):
a. By personal service. | personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) Fora
party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents,
in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify ring being served, with a receptionist or an individual in
charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the fnoming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made
to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age
between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.
Page 1 of3
Form Approved for Optonal Use Cc Code of Ci Procaare, $§ 10108, 1011, 1019, 10138,
PROOF OF SERVICE. IVIL 2015.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.260, 2.306
“Judicial Council of California
OS-040 Rev. July 1,201] (Proof of Service) ww courtsca.gov@ e
|CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER:
Nasir Patel vs. Mark Edwards CUD-13-644474
POS-040
6. b. [¥_] By United States mail. | enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the
addresses in item 5 and (specify one):
(1) deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid.
(2) L¥_J} placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar
with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that
correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the
United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
| am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at
(city and state):
Cc By overnight delivery. | enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery
carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5. | placed the envelope or package for collection
and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
d. By messenger service. | served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons
at the addresses listed in item 5 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by
the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained in the Declaration of Messenger below.)
e. By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, | faxed the documents
to the persons at the fax numbers listed in item 5. No error was reported by the fax machine that | used. A copy of the
record of the fax transmission, which | printed out, is attached.
f. By electronic service. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, | caused the
documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic service addresses listed in item 5.
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: Aprilff, 2013
Mark Edwatrds
(IYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT)
(if item 6d above is checked, the declaration below must be completed or a separate declaration from a messenger must be attached.)
DECLARATION OF MESSENGER
By personal service. | personally delivered the envelope or package received from the declarant above to the persons at the
addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's
office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package, which was clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served,
with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2)
For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger
than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.
At the time of service, | was over 18 years of age. | am not a party to the above-referenced legal proceeding.
| served the envelope or package, as stated above, on (date):
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: WW ZB
clone” Pecfe evans, HA. > wna Roots Cone; ha
(NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)
Page 2 of 3
POS-040 [Rev. July 1, 2011] PROOF OF SERVICE—CIVIL
(Proof of Service)
Preview
MUA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Apr-11-2013 3:23 pm Case Number: CUD-13-644474 Filing Date: Apr-11-2013 3:22 Filed by: WESLEY G. RAMIREZ Juke Box: 001 Image: 04015019 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER NASIR PATEL VS. MARK THOMAS EDWARDS 001004015019 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.27 28 he DD Fe oy Gest, GUNS Sepey ut Gan Francisco 6 MARK EDWARDS wae In Propria Persona APR id 2048 Polk Street #303 San Francisco, CA 94109 aK OET COURT CLE! 415.240-0191 ae BY: Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA FOR THE COURTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CaseNo.: GUD -13 -GuU4TY Ex — PARTS MOTION TO QUASH/ DISSMISSAL/ STAY OR WRIT FOR MANDAND/PROHIBITION AND MEMORANDUM-IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT EDWARDS DECLARATION NASIR PATEL, Plaintiff, vs. MARK EDWARDS, ~ Date: April 14, 2013 Time: 44 HO Location: 400 Hearing Judge: Ronald E. Quidichay Date Action Filed: February Trial Date: April 22, 2013 Defendant JfBhtCATE/ MOTION TO QUASH/ DISSMISSAL / STAY OR WRIT FOR PROHIBITION MEMORANDUM THE DEFENDANT MARK EDWARDS, by and under MOTION TO QUASH/ DISSMISSAL. OR / STAY WITH ATTACHMENT OF WRIT FOR PROHIBITION CHALLENGES both the plaintiff And court’s absent of right to legal jurisdiction Code of Civil Procedure Section 418.10-418.11 and fraud under California Anti “Slapp Law” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 96) Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 in this pending civil matter hereof pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section| 1167.4(a) and California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1327(a). Further defendant Edwards Challenges procedural constitution violations and abuse of discretion to place restrains on/ and over his liberty in the voidance of exercise of constitution requirements by relax Municipal Policies and conduct. That such infringement address whether owed “fundamental fairness” NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION & EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.127 28 was adequately applied regarding due process safeguard under equal protection. United States Constitution Amendment Article I, §8, Article 8 and Article14, The defendant addresses the issue of intentional procedure practice of “farce and sham’ scheme luring him into responsive tactical means of “Unfair Competition” transparent deceptive cloak of the law denying him of both procedural safeguard and owed fundamental “fairness and impartiality” of the judicial process in pending matter at cause also by means of Ex-Communication. See Civil Code §1709 and California Code of Judicial Ethics ~ Canon(s) 1-6 A. Prejudicial Effect Shows that plaintiff lack jurisdiction: Under legal authority of Rule 3:100 (g) California Rules of Court the presiding justices maintain Full discretional disclosure of records on both sides of parties to a controversial dispute and where failure Of compliance by a party is not in compliance with statutory requirements then the cause of dispute is moot due to lack of jurisdiction entitlement. In the herein civil matter plaintiff was and remain in procedural default which was unlawfully waived, showing none “effective service” was adequately meant entitling the defendant to a motion for dismissal. The presented irregularities as challengeable technicalities were procedurally by means induce force and fear coming from the bench. (See Attached files in Declaration) [Venner v. Michigan Central Railroad Company 271 U.S. 127, 46 S. Ct. 444, 70 L. Ed. 868 (1926)] . lack of jurisdiction or want of jurisdiction is a legal preposition challengeable regarding existing irregularities “effecting the outcome” toward fundamental fairness. California rules of Court, Rule G and Code §415.40 of California Civil Procedure. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS NON-WAIVEABLE The requirements of POS-010 Proof of Service of Summons service must be attached to the complaint Personal service means summons and complaint was personally served on the defendant. They have 5 days to respond. For example, if the defendant gets the summons and complaint on the Ist, the 5-day period to respond starts on the 2nd and ends on the 6th. You can file for default on the 7th. Filing the Unlawful Detainer Complaint NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION & EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.2*Clerk will keep original complaint and return copies with a file stamp on them. +The Clerk will stamp court seal on one summons for each defendant — this is now the original and “conform” (i.e., date stamp) the other copy for your file. Serving the Summons and Complaint +A copy of the summons and complaint must be served on each resident/party to the action +Also serve prejudgment claim of right of possession *Completed proof of service of summons will be filed with original summons Serving the Summons and Complaint -Who can serve? Any non-party over 18. Exception: Prejudgment claim of possession *Service methods — same as three-day notice -When is service effective? (Personal service (2-3 attempts)- date served © Substitute — 10 days after mailed OPost and Mail- 10 days (Court permission) Prejudgment Claims of Possession Must be served by Marshal, Sheriff, Registered Process Server *Requires all unnamed occupants to come forward +Form to use: CCP Section 415.46 Occupant has 10 days to file claim and five days after that to file a response to the complaint. “If claim is filed, eviction is put on hold and court hearing held within 5-15 day to determine claim. If upheld, owner must start over ~ naming the additional occupant; if not — unlawful detainer proceeds. This was not a “harmless error” by Plaintiff Nasir Patel and therefore defendant motion for dismissal demurrer was appropriate and denied not being within Municipal Compliance with its own standards of rules. (See Attached files in Declaration) . (See Venner v. Michigan Central Railroad Company 271 U.S. 127, 46 S. Ct. 444, 70 L. Ed. 868 (1926) and Snow v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.2d 787 (9" Cir. 1977)) B. Pleading of a Fraudulent Cause within means of California Anti Slapp-Law/ Fraud: Inadvertently can be draw that plaintiff and his agent did enter into a written agreement and forfeit On the agreement after defendant handing them his payment for his monthly residential occupancy, he Request for a copy of the written agreement he signed though reluctantly was never NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION & EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.3provided one though Promise on would be placed in his control mail slot in the hotel clerk office on August 29, 2012. From that point on plaintiff and his agents reluctant to provide the defendant one in “bad faith” Ignoring him each time he requested a copy being in non- substantial compliance with Califomia Consumer Protection Act which entitling him the right of right to disclosure of the condition of hotel facility under pre-contractual negotiation, plus access to entitled copy of contract entered. On September 18, 2012 Plaintiff with his agent still acting in “bad faith” muscle defendant Edwards out of additional $1000.00 deposit on top of his August 29, 2012 $500.00 means of force and fear and intimation by means of committed fraud, compelling him to pay deposit or move which defendant Edwards was compelled to use the Service of San Francisco SRO Collaborative Agency. (See Attached files in Declaration) Legal Position: Ifa default was entered, a motion to quash service may be combined with a motion to set aside the default. A defendant may also bring a separate motion to set aside a default on the ground of a mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. [See Code of Civil Procedure §473(b).] The proposed answer or other pleading must accompany the motion to set aside. [See Code of Civil Procedure §473(b). ] see Puryear v Stanley (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 291, 293-295; but see Job v Farrington (1989) 209 CA3d 338, 340-341 (substantial compliance if filed before hearing). Earlier cases have upheld actions for abuse of process involving allegedly improper collection practices without addressing the applicability of the litigation privilege. (See, e.g., Barquis, supra, 7 Cal.3d at pp. 103-104 [collection agency's alleged practice of filing actions in multiple improper venues]; Kappel v. Bartlett, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1463-1467 [process server's filing false declaration of service of process to obtain default judgment]; Czap v. Credit Bureau of Santa Clara Valley (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d court record history of dealing with unlawful detainers show this was not a “harmless error” on both his and the court. Such interpret can only be drawn that plaintiff herein took the position of circumventing the legal process system to elude his obligated position at San Francisco Rent Board to avoided due settlement NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION & EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.427 28 entitlements which he owed defendant for decrease in services and premises liability injuries incurred to defendant Edwards. That Retaliatory efforts to void payments on his behave resulted in the circumventing owed costs and expenses “out of the pocket” of defendant Edwards which the plaintiff has neglect to reimburse. (See attached Declaration) C. The Legal Ground for Dismissal Under a investigating team of legal analysis made discovery — show invite or initiation of errors was judicial over looked against their “prejudicial effects” depriving defendant herein of his right to procedure fundamental “fairness.” That such errors presented grounds of arguable technicalities “grossly over looked” by the acting magistrate presiding over the case management and assignment of civil case actions for jury trial. That a unethical and illegal violation regarding “abuse of discretion” warranted that the defendant Edwards case be dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction at his March 18, 2013 motion hearing consisting of a Motion for Dismissal/ Strike or Stay of Proceedings which was unlawfully denied. And his April 15, 2013 Motion for Demurrer which was also illegally procedurally waived and denied also on March 18, 2013. (See Attached files in Declaration) The legal team further investigation “exposed” unlawful and/or in volunteer waiver of defendant’s constitutional safeguard of procedural rights was a gray gross miscarriage of justice within the fundamental sense of deprived Equal Protection and owed Due Process not afforded. D. Legal Ground for Writ For Prohibition — Abuse of Discretion On March 18, 2013 when defendant Edwards attempt to address with objection to his position of the matter and grounds of illegalities, the court abused its discretion in silencing him, and compelling him to unlawfully respond (answer) to a complaint which “lack jurisdiction” within a time period of 5 days upon receiving the courts order by mail under peer pressure of intimidation and coercion coming from the bench which defendant Edwards only complied to order through means of coercion, (See Attached files in Declaration) NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION & EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.5See Judicial Council Governance Policies a. The Judicial Council acts as a governing body for the judicial branch to ensure the statewide administration of justice by supporting the California courts and assisting them to provide equal and timely access to an independent and impartial justice system for all Californians. b. The Judicial Council ensures that justice on a statewide basis is properly administered, the work of the California courts is coordinated, and the judicial branch functions efficiently and effectively. The council supports the development and dissemination of innovations and best practices consistent with judicial branch goals E, Unfair Competition by means of Deceit 1. The defendant waited exactly 4 days for receipt of the Court’s Order by mail, which either the plaintiff Obstruct/ or Interfered with the legal process by withhold defendant’s residential mail, or the order was never forwarded. Code §17200 of California Business & Profession and Civil Code §1709 Further the defendant Edwards never waived his right to receive adequate notice by the court which was further waived by plaintiff and his agents by means of Obstruction/ or I!legal Interference through mail restriction control by plaintiff and his agents at Broadway Hotel Clerk Office. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Citing - Pioneer Electronics v. Superior Court (2007), 40 Cal.4th 360 2. The defendant being harassed and stalked using legal facilities restricting his legal preparation| and defense under an well organize buddy system. (See Attached files in Declaration) 3. Until this day defendant has been ex-communicated of receipt of any Court correspondence, except Citing - Beeman y. Burling (1990)216 Cal. App. 3d 1586 [265 Cal. Rptr. 719] 4. The illegal exposure of unlawful obtainment of confidential information of defendant and posted it near his residential door of hotel by Plaintiff and his Agent’s for harassment and intimidation purposes and creative atmosphere of emotional hardship. NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION & EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.6AB 363 (Steinberg) Whistleblower protections. F, Lack of Jurisdiction/ or Want of Jurisdiction Under Fraud Complaint Filed Under Code §413.40 of California Civil Procedure A party of interest is prohibit in engaging in acting as Service Processor, 07-8-9418 Muhammad v. Newark Housing Authority, Third Cir. (per curiam) (8 pp.) (March 2013) By the plaintiff attempt of circumventing the legal system in waiving a pending City and County Commission “Evidentiary Hearing” for remedy administrative exhaustion purpose of his own default was acalculated tactical choice avoiding of San Francisco Rent Broad Hearing of January 15, 2013 and March 26, 2013 relating to own settle plaintiff is in debt to defendant. Legality Claim at Issue Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal. App.3d 1457, 1464, 246 Cal. Rptr. 815 (citing Judicial Council of Cal. com., 14 West's Ann. Code Civ. Proc. (1973) ed.) 413.10, p. 541, and 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Jurisdiction, 84, p.454and Olson v. Arnett (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 59 citing Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 96 REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW ENTITLE JUSTICE TO BE MET: The Defendant hereof seek this court to direct presented “Argumentative Grounds” for Remedy Relief Sought To Issuance of Motion To Quash/Dismiss/ and or Writ For Mandate as set forth: Richmond y. Dart Industries, Inc. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 869, 879 .) 1. Dismiss is mandatory under the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling for No Jurisdiction/70 L. Ed. 868 We hold that the dismissal for want of jurisdiction was right. 2. Issuance of Writ For Mandate holds constitutional standard of law concerning raise issues of “Discretionary Abuse by Inferior Court Non-compliance with United States Constitutions, as non-compliance with harmony of California Code of Judicial Ethics - Canons 1- 6. 3. The Court is with obligatory discretion in compliance with “procedural direction” or any existing “admissibility issues” tending to show prejudice or owed protected right violated which has constitutional effects of infringement upon the defendant’s right. NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION & EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.74. Constitution Prohibition of Third Parties of Interest of illegal interference with the process system! of a defendant rights to fundamental fairness protected or solicit exposure of information that would cause or create a prejudicial effect regarding the outcome. 5. Plaintiff was not entitled to repetitious use his (“employee”) as associate with the cause/or party to his Trust business: the service of Summon must be a valid license party without an interest in the service of plaintiff business. Such Complaint is invalid and shal] constitution violation of defendant rights to due process and equal protection clause. 6. Where defendant act or in volunteer respond to a court order/ demand lacking jurisdiction by means of intimidation or coercion by means of “Unfair Competition and Deceit” pursuant Code §17200 of California Business & Profession and Civil Code §1709 7. California Slapp Law Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 entitles defendant challengeable grounds of a fraud complaint imposing inequitable expense upon the county and state, 8. It is further an imposed interference as of matter of law to restrict or cause defendant to suffer deprivation access to the court under his Faretta Rights FARETTA v. CALIFORNIA, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) in violation of defendant Edwards 6" Amendment. GRANT PRAYER DIRECTING ORDER FOR MOTION TO QUASH/ DISMISSAL/ WRIT FOR. MANDATE/ PROHIBITION BEGRANTED TO DEFENDANT WITH IMPOSED SANCTIONS FOR AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AWARDS ON GROUNDS OF BAD FAITH Dated this ape, 2013 MARK THOMAS EDWARDS In Propria Persona — Litigant NOTICE OF MOTION FOR MOTION OF DISMISSAL/WRIT OF MANDATE SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY AND SUPPORT DECLARATION & EVIDENCE OF DEFENDAN MARK EDWARDS - P.8POS-040 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY | Mark Edwards 2048 Polk Street #303 San Francisco, CA 94109 _ TELEPHONE NO. 415.240-0191 FAX NO. (Optional): . D E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): 1 nit ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Pro Se. sypeic & out ca uN ia SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY oF SAN FRANCSICO County street avoress: 400 McAllister Street 44 i 43 MAILING ADDRESS APR CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Francisco, CA 94109 ‘T BRANCH NAME: CLERK TH COUR Boe ay clerk PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Nasir Patel BY: i ‘Deputy Ciel DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Mark Edwards ‘CASE NUMBER: PROOF OF SERVICE—CIVIL CUD-13-644474 ‘Check method of service (only one): = [= By Personal Service 7) By Mail By Overnight Delivery woot CawalS 6 .Quidic. ye 7 (1 By Messenger Service [7] By Fax By Electronic Service DEPT. vol (Do not use this proof of service to show service of a Summons and complaint.) 1. At the time of service | was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. My residence or business address is: % Me Box Holla, San Firancteery a g4l4o 3. The fax number or electronic service address from which | served the documents is (complete if service was by fax or electronic service): 4. On (date): April//, 2013 | served the following documents (specify): // 3 A + e . i 1) Application and Notice of MOT in sMowi CN For Order to Quash Ex Parte/D iserisstl jet Ned e, * Soho Ts, 1)Ex Parte For Motion To Quash° . 1) SUPPORTIVE DpECaraTioN = ENG EO) ¥ | The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service~Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-040(D)). 5. | served the documents on the person or persons below, as follows: a. Name of person served: b. (Complete if service was by personal service, mail, overnight delivery, or messenger service.) Business or residential address where person was served: c. (Complete if service was by fax or electronic service.) (1) Fax number or electronic service address where person was served: (2) Time of service: The names, addresses, and other applicable information about persons served is on the Attachment to Proof of Service—Civil (Persons Served) (form POS-040(P)). 6. The documents were served by the following means (specify): a. By personal service. | personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) Fora party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify ring being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the fnoming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. Page 1 of3 Form Approved for Optonal Use Cc Code of Ci Procaare, $§ 10108, 1011, 1019, 10138, PROOF OF SERVICE. IVIL 2015.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.260, 2.306 “Judicial Council of California OS-040 Rev. July 1,201] (Proof of Service) ww courtsca.gov@ e |CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER: Nasir Patel vs. Mark Edwards CUD-13-644474 POS-040 6. b. [¥_] By United States mail. | enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5 and (specify one): (1) deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid. (2) L¥_J} placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. | am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at (city and state): Cc By overnight delivery. | enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5. | placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. d. By messenger service. | served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained in the Declaration of Messenger below.) e. By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, | faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in item 5. No error was reported by the fax machine that | used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which | printed out, is attached. f. By electronic service. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, | caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic service addresses listed in item 5. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: Aprilff, 2013 Mark Edwatrds (IYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (if item 6d above is checked, the declaration below must be completed or a separate declaration from a messenger must be attached.) DECLARATION OF MESSENGER By personal service. | personally delivered the envelope or package received from the declarant above to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package, which was clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. At the time of service, | was over 18 years of age. | am not a party to the above-referenced legal proceeding. | served the envelope or package, as stated above, on (date): | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: WW ZB clone” Pecfe evans, HA. > wna Roots Cone; ha (NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) Page 2 of 3 POS-040 [Rev. July 1, 2011] PROOF OF SERVICE—CIVIL (Proof of Service)