Preview
1
:
gEgSBICANEERRY suggfimgggmfi SaalFORNiNA N
N
. . ox ,
OCT 23 2020 ' ‘ "
SOLVANG, CA. 93464 JUN-"fig; g. -
(650) 515-0161
. . .
Iceskateordie@gma11.com
Darrel E
a" éj
P3
mam
'car,
A 1, afgW
ullve Officer
enuty l9
\OWQONUIAMNl—I
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA} . .:. .
~' 1‘
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA-ANACAPA DIVISION f ~_ NZ“-
9 ,
SCANNED
‘
'
DAVID BERTRAND, An Individual, relatgdr—ISCJO235H19CV02429 f
RESPONDENT JESSICA BERRY,---' ,
APP euant , GIVES WRITTEN OBJECTION
TO APPELLANTS MoTION TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION - . .
PERTAINING TO: APPELLANTS
VS-
NOTICE OF TAKING REMOTE'
WEB & DIGITAL DEPOSITION
OF JESSICA BERRY IN LIEU OF
JESSICA BERRY, An Individual, IN-PERSON, SEPT. 17, 2020
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHp—IH
OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS NIN'°:
ooaI-AOJNHOVDOO\16\UIAUJNH©
Respondent, A
THE AMOUNT OF $2, 695 .00‘
'
RESPONDENTS REQUESTNNFOR _j.
SANCTIONS OF $2, 095.
00 N
RESPONDENTS REQUEST FOR
COURT APPOINTED “MASTER” -
TO OVERSEE DISCOVERY .
‘
Motion Date: November 9, 2020 .
Honorable Judge Colleen: Sterne ‘
_'
SB Superior Court DNepajNIgtment 5_‘
"'9. '
.:
DAVID BERTRAND has turned a legitimate legal svster‘n‘into‘a‘weanoné"
'
To be unleashed against the women whom he has robbed and abused
'
'
'
OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO COMPEL/ SANCTIONS
-
Pa‘ge..N1.of:11‘jt
\DOOQO’NUIJBUJNr—t
W- PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the day of NOVEMBEReth; 2020' in“
Department 5 of the Santa Barbara Superior Court, at 10:00am orias soon as
thereafter it is possible for THE HONORABLE JUDGE COLLEEN STERNE t0
address this matter, Respondent JESSICA BERRY does hereby prov1de NOTICE
.'
.i
,
'
.
of OBJECTION to Appellants Motion to Compel. JESSICA BERRY also enters.
Herein her OBJECTION to the Appellant’s request for sanctions
V
I
This OBJECTION makes several points as to the basis for rejectmg the.
Motion to compel: including that the Appellants ‘Notice of Taking Remote Web &
Digital Deposition’ on Sept 17, 2020 failed 1n multiple ways to comply with the iii:
CA Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 2025. 270(a), $ 1013. The Notice prov1ded gave
less than 10 days, where for deposition at least 15 days notice required if service
'
Is mailed. This fact alone may justify denying the Motion and sa'nct-ions...~ .
An important rule of Civil Code 1s very clear on this .point “No one can.
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHF‘HHHH
ooqcxm-th-cxoooqcxmawtowc
take advantage of his own wrong’. .(Civ. Code $ 3517). Yet MARK COFFIN has? '
knowingly brought fraudulent documents of his own creation into the discovery
process, and then demanded MISS BERRY do the impossible. - answer questionssf
pertaining to those fraudulent documents.
A
Unethical actions are damaging from mis- representation prov1ded by
'
attorney JAN KAESTNER. Also evidence has been gathered which suggests the
current JUDGE STERNE and Dept. 5 court venue have been biased- With a pre
disposition, and this 1s according to the local District Attorney & County. Exec. .1.
i.
OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO COMPEL/ SANCTIONS‘ page-125513 .
~
Office. COFFIN has refused to provide me with the Discovery I requested'i-i i _-
1
Months ago; all this provides backing for what is critically necessary andlnthe
a
interests of justice: There is an urgent need for a court appointe;d"MASTl§lR"tbi f
I;
provide oversight to the discovery process. Additional time will berequlredto
\DWQGNUIAWNH
collect discovery due to these serious breaches of ethics and unacceptable
.
i I
i
V
standards of conduct. PLEASE CAN THE COURT APPOINT A MASTER‘?
I have been the victim of DAVID BERTRAND’ S abuse for a decade and- a
half, this being normalized by an unethical therapist. I have extensive evidence
'
'
1
to the incredibly enormous amounts of work I performed for the Appellant a 1;"
I
.
it
thousand maid services, 2600 Guests hosted, 21 new leases, 141 Cra1gshstads
I A
28 move out cleanings, 23 apartment painting jobs, 535 Airbnb trips completed
and giving me a SUPER- HOST designation, multiple properties landscaped 100 " ~
miles commuted daily and RECORD INCOME from my property management I
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHh‘HHp—Ar—t
have been paid negative dollars for providing years of this excellent work. ~' ~
:ill
Recognize that Appellant DAVID BERTRAND has d1splayedapattern ,
.‘
”\IONUl-RWNHCOWQONUIAWNHO
of abusing the women he keeps in a domestic roll and living in his 'residencei'for. -
a“:
myself this was emotional, physical and sexual. I did NOT eVer deserve
to be
Victimized Via crimes. My background has been defrauded, helping BERTRAND
To get away with his crimes; and this meaning I may never recoverm_ own life
BERTRAND has turned the Court System, which is meant to proV1de Justice. into
A weapon with which he can abuse his victims; ultimately for his financial gain:
/:1:
.
DATED: OCTOBER 21,2020.
ssica AL/Berry, in 6170.15.51 .
OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO COMPEL/ SANCTIONS ‘Pag¢,3'.'o’f 11 .-
.‘
I”
-
f 'H; '
_..
.
I
I.
i
.
i
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL . ‘
'
NOTICE OF MEMORANDUM WITH POINTS OF AUTHORITY-"f; -. .-
~
i
There are multiple problems with the Notice for Deposition; as‘served,
which have made it non-compliant with CA Code of Civil Procedure ‘
\OOOQONUIAMNH
(1) Timely service of notice for deposition was NOT provided; '1
'
Service was provided by Scott J aske by mail on Sept. 8, 2020fora
"
deposition which was scheduled on Sept. 17, 2020. Service by mailT requlresa
.
“minimum of 15 days notice” when being served for a deposition: (The party 20-
i
demanding a deposition required to provide “at least 10 days notice?" When it .is '_
ii
personally served.) For some reason, this Notice by mail came exceptIOnally late.
MISS BERRY received the first of 4 exact same notices Sept 15th tle -
‘
.
.
-
:
incredibly sick. It can not be coincidental that the first notice showed up
a day after it could be objected to within a 3 day window adhering-to: court'rule‘s. ii
:1
MARK COFFIN, anomalous to his many years of completely Ignorlng me, i
NNNNNNNNNHHI—IHHHHHHH
D
suddenly breaks with tradition Aug- Sept 2020. (EXHIBIT 1); he starts sendlng
oeqcxmawNcoooqaxm-kr—c
constant demands for submission to a deposition. This was coincidingwith the: ;
exact time where I became homeless and also was disfigured badly'bylillnessj.
(EXHIBIT 2)
(2) Deposition notice did not contain required info in 2025.210 eti's.eq._':;_..,_
(a) there was no specification with reasonable particularity of any materialsor‘
category of materials to be produce by the deponent
‘
‘ ‘
“a
OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO COMPEL/ SANCTIONS 12¢;s or 111:
g
(b) there was no list or copy of what exhibits would be used in the deposition} ..
‘
(c) no notice of intention to use at trial a videotape deposition of a treating or g
consulting physician or any other expert
“
\OOOQONUI-RUJNh—I
((1) no statement disclosing the existence of any contract between the. noticing )- .
i
party or a third party financing the action and the deposition officer ore-intity. ‘
,.
. ’3"
providing the service to the offer, or any other relation with a conflict of interest
'
APPELLANTS FRAUDS AND CRIMES = QUALITY of 1111111111; EnucTION .
. .
a
The Court should please consider that the main cause 1ncreasmgly
of my
difficult life circumstance is rooted with the Appellant DAVID BERTRAND
robbing me, defrauding my background, and abusing me with illegitimate legal ~' '
I'
actions, Additionally, this man, Whose wealth I increased by millions," still 0W§si
me approx. $52,000. in reimbursable business and personal expe'nSes’which were
covered by myself while in service to him. I was provided a signed contract by .'
NNNNNNNNNHH'HHHHHHp—H
ooqamamNr-coooqcxmamuwc
DAVID BERTRAND demonstrating he knows I am owed this-money; The .- 0
Contract, written by MARK COFFIN, is titled “Personal Services Agreement” j
Y
(EXHIBIT 3)
It has become impossible for me to rent a home now becauseDAVID .
i
'
"
BERTRAND sued me with an unwarranted Unlawful Detainer; a.
legal action
Based on a fraudulent lease created by MARK COFFIN that has forever sta1ned
my character and reduced all opportunities. A fake lease created by MARK
COFFIN was used to justify this act to the courts. (EXHIBIT 4) MARK
OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO COMPEL/ SANCTIONS pégé siofjii
-
/
I. .'
/
vI
v
‘
COFFIN is now intending to use the fake lease as an employment-"contract'td.
steal my wages with fraud. I provided my lawyers with a copy Q‘f'my'real'leas'er-
with BERTRAND. (EXHIBIT 5). H
\Dwfla‘sUI-RMNi—I
BERTRANDS work plan was heavily promoted by the LMFT therap1st
Who was treating me for PTSD; this Therapist evidenced as receivmg both. free
B
and reduced rent from BERTRAND for assisting him with my eXp101tat10n
(EXHIBIT 6)
Appellant BERTRAND has been bullying me now with 4lawsu1ts l ania
-.
person whom has been shown to have a bonafide claim against him for $98,003
i
in unpaid wages. This is the worst wage theft ever in SB. California’s Court of Q.
‘
Appeals recently made vividly clear “sanctions should be reservedfor serlous 3-i'
'
'
violations of the standard practice, not used as a bullying tactic”. (K1mv .
i
Westmoore Partners, Inc. 2011
it i
l'
- 201 Cal.App.4th 267,293.). '_
?
1|
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHI—‘Hl—‘p—Ar—I
ooaI-tHcVDooqaxUIAmNr-tc
COFFIN Bullying me when I was so obviously sick and unabletoappear 'f
g
'
on camera does not merit sanctions. 4 lawsuits based on fraud bullylngmewhen)
I
i
P
Wages are due to me is more than hurtful - these are bullying tactics?
Will the courts finally uphold the laws and recognize the crimesof an‘jEXploitera? -' ~
'
SUBSTANTIAL BREACHES OF ETHICAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT:
I
‘
The California Court of Appeals has also voiced overwhelmingly the'be'lief -
that a party should only be sanctioned Where they have acted withbut’fsubstantial
justification. (Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1177) I:
OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO COMPEL/ SANCTIONS éa‘ge
net 11}: g
.
JESSICA BERRY respectfully requests the Superior COurt recognizethe
.
I
substantial justification which has compelled me to withdraw theipriOr‘ahsweiés
..
to Appellants discovery questions, and her needing additional time tidaddressi the
‘
\DOOQQUIAOJNr—I
problematic position Ive been placed In by my councils breach of ethics I‘he
prior answers were assisted by JAN KAESTNER of GHIT’I‘ERMAN FELD whom
I A
Has failed to properly and ethically represent me in every regard. ._
.
‘.
There is one additional matter for JESSICA BERRY to be concerned With
..
i
GHITTERMAN FELD did obtain through false pretense MISS BERRY’SApple -. '
ID and PASSWORD, and already multiple forms of evidence haVe surfaced to -.
demonstrate that JESSICA BERRY’S identity has been stolen; so a: legitimate
concern being that someone pretending to be MISS BERRY will pubhcly pest u 1'
d I
Preview
1 : gEgSBICANEERRY suggfimgggmfi SaalFORNiNA N N . . ox , OCT 23 2020 ' ‘ " SOLVANG, CA. 93464 JUN-"fig; g. - (650) 515-0161 . . . Iceskateordie@gma11.com Darrel E a" éj P3 mam 'car, A 1, afgW ullve Officer enuty l9 \OWQONUIAMNl—I SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA} . .:. . ~' 1‘ COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA-ANACAPA DIVISION f ~_ NZ“- 9 , SCANNED ‘ ' DAVID BERTRAND, An Individual, relatgdr—ISCJO235H19CV02429 f RESPONDENT JESSICA BERRY,---' , APP euant , GIVES WRITTEN OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS MoTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION - . . PERTAINING TO: APPELLANTS VS- NOTICE OF TAKING REMOTE' WEB & DIGITAL DEPOSITION OF JESSICA BERRY IN LIEU OF JESSICA BERRY, An Individual, IN-PERSON, SEPT. 17, 2020 NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHp—IH OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS NIN'°: ooaI-AOJNHOVDOO\16\UIAUJNH© Respondent, A THE AMOUNT OF $2, 695 .00‘ ' RESPONDENTS REQUESTNNFOR _j. SANCTIONS OF $2, 095. 00 N RESPONDENTS REQUEST FOR COURT APPOINTED “MASTER” - TO OVERSEE DISCOVERY . ‘ Motion Date: November 9, 2020 . Honorable Judge Colleen: Sterne ‘ _' SB Superior Court DNepajNIgtment 5_‘ "'9. ' .: DAVID BERTRAND has turned a legitimate legal svster‘n‘into‘a‘weanoné" ' To be unleashed against the women whom he has robbed and abused ' ' ' OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO COMPEL/ SANCTIONS - Pa‘ge..N1.of:11‘jt \DOOQO’NUIJBUJNr—t W- PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the day of NOVEMBEReth; 2020' in“ Department 5 of the Santa Barbara Superior Court, at 10:00am orias soon as thereafter it is possible for THE HONORABLE JUDGE COLLEEN STERNE t0 address this matter, Respondent JESSICA BERRY does hereby prov1de NOTICE .' .i , ' . of OBJECTION to Appellants Motion to Compel. JESSICA BERRY also enters. Herein her OBJECTION to the Appellant’s request for sanctions V I This OBJECTION makes several points as to the basis for rejectmg the. Motion to compel: including that the Appellants ‘Notice of Taking Remote Web & Digital Deposition’ on Sept 17, 2020 failed 1n multiple ways to comply with the iii: CA Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 2025. 270(a), $ 1013. The Notice prov1ded gave less than 10 days, where for deposition at least 15 days notice required if service ' Is mailed. This fact alone may justify denying the Motion and sa'nct-ions...~ . An important rule of Civil Code 1s very clear on this .point “No one can. NNNNNNNNNHHHHHF‘HHHH ooqcxm-th-cxoooqcxmawtowc take advantage of his own wrong’. .(Civ. Code $ 3517). Yet MARK COFFIN has? ' knowingly brought fraudulent documents of his own creation into the discovery process, and then demanded MISS BERRY do the impossible. - answer questionssf pertaining to those fraudulent documents. A Unethical actions are damaging from mis- representation prov1ded by ' attorney JAN KAESTNER. Also evidence has been gathered which suggests the current JUDGE STERNE and Dept. 5 court venue have been biased- With a pre disposition, and this 1s according to the local District Attorney & County. Exec. .1. i. OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO COMPEL/ SANCTIONS‘ page-125513 . ~ Office. COFFIN has refused to provide me with the Discovery I requested'i-i i _- 1 Months ago; all this provides backing for what is critically necessary andlnthe a interests of justice: There is an urgent need for a court appointe;d"MASTl§lR"tbi f I; provide oversight to the discovery process. Additional time will berequlredto \DWQGNUIAWNH collect discovery due to these serious breaches of ethics and unacceptable . i I i V standards of conduct. PLEASE CAN THE COURT APPOINT A MASTER‘? I have been the victim of DAVID BERTRAND’ S abuse for a decade and- a half, this being normalized by an unethical therapist. I have extensive evidence ' ' 1 to the incredibly enormous amounts of work I performed for the Appellant a 1;" I . it thousand maid services, 2600 Guests hosted, 21 new leases, 141 Cra1gshstads I A 28 move out cleanings, 23 apartment painting jobs, 535 Airbnb trips completed and giving me a SUPER- HOST designation, multiple properties landscaped 100 " ~ miles commuted daily and RECORD INCOME from my property management I NNNNNNNNNHHHHHh‘HHp—Ar—t have been paid negative dollars for providing years of this excellent work. ~' ~ :ill Recognize that Appellant DAVID BERTRAND has d1splayedapattern , .‘ ”\IONUl-RWNHCOWQONUIAWNHO of abusing the women he keeps in a domestic roll and living in his 'residencei'for. - a“: myself this was emotional, physical and sexual. I did NOT eVer deserve to be Victimized Via crimes. My background has been defrauded, helping BERTRAND To get away with his crimes; and this meaning I may never recoverm_ own life BERTRAND has turned the Court System, which is meant to proV1de Justice. into A weapon with which he can abuse his victims; ultimately for his financial gain: /:1: . DATED: OCTOBER 21,2020. ssica AL/Berry, in 6170.15.51 . OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO COMPEL/ SANCTIONS ‘Pag¢,3'.'o’f 11 .- .‘ I” - f 'H; ' _.. . I I. i . i OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL . ‘ ' NOTICE OF MEMORANDUM WITH POINTS OF AUTHORITY-"f; -. .- ~ i There are multiple problems with the Notice for Deposition; as‘served, which have made it non-compliant with CA Code of Civil Procedure ‘ \OOOQONUIAMNH (1) Timely service of notice for deposition was NOT provided; '1 ' Service was provided by Scott J aske by mail on Sept. 8, 2020fora " deposition which was scheduled on Sept. 17, 2020. Service by mailT requlresa . “minimum of 15 days notice” when being served for a deposition: (The party 20- i demanding a deposition required to provide “at least 10 days notice?" When it .is '_ ii personally served.) For some reason, this Notice by mail came exceptIOnally late. MISS BERRY received the first of 4 exact same notices Sept 15th tle - ‘ . . - : incredibly sick. It can not be coincidental that the first notice showed up a day after it could be objected to within a 3 day window adhering-to: court'rule‘s. ii :1 MARK COFFIN, anomalous to his many years of completely Ignorlng me, i NNNNNNNNNHHI—IHHHHHHH D suddenly breaks with tradition Aug- Sept 2020. (EXHIBIT 1); he starts sendlng oeqcxmawNcoooqaxm-kr—c constant demands for submission to a deposition. This was coincidingwith the: ; exact time where I became homeless and also was disfigured badly'bylillnessj. (EXHIBIT 2) (2) Deposition notice did not contain required info in 2025.210 eti's.eq._':;_..,_ (a) there was no specification with reasonable particularity of any materialsor‘ category of materials to be produce by the deponent ‘ ‘ ‘ “a OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO COMPEL/ SANCTIONS 12¢;s or 111: g (b) there was no list or copy of what exhibits would be used in the deposition} .. ‘ (c) no notice of intention to use at trial a videotape deposition of a treating or g consulting physician or any other expert “ \OOOQONUI-RUJNh—I ((1) no statement disclosing the existence of any contract between the. noticing )- . i party or a third party financing the action and the deposition officer ore-intity. ‘ ,. . ’3" providing the service to the offer, or any other relation with a conflict of interest ' APPELLANTS FRAUDS AND CRIMES = QUALITY of 1111111111; EnucTION . . . a The Court should please consider that the main cause 1ncreasmgly of my difficult life circumstance is rooted with the Appellant DAVID BERTRAND robbing me, defrauding my background, and abusing me with illegitimate legal ~' ' I' actions, Additionally, this man, Whose wealth I increased by millions," still 0W§si me approx. $52,000. in reimbursable business and personal expe'nSes’which were covered by myself while in service to him. I was provided a signed contract by .' NNNNNNNNNHH'HHHHHHp—H ooqamamNr-coooqcxmamuwc DAVID BERTRAND demonstrating he knows I am owed this-money; The .- 0 Contract, written by MARK COFFIN, is titled “Personal Services Agreement” j Y (EXHIBIT 3) It has become impossible for me to rent a home now becauseDAVID . i ' " BERTRAND sued me with an unwarranted Unlawful Detainer; a. legal action Based on a fraudulent lease created by MARK COFFIN that has forever sta1ned my character and reduced all opportunities. A fake lease created by MARK COFFIN was used to justify this act to the courts. (EXHIBIT 4) MARK OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO COMPEL/ SANCTIONS pégé siofjii - / I. .' / vI v ‘ COFFIN is now intending to use the fake lease as an employment-"contract'td. steal my wages with fraud. I provided my lawyers with a copy Q‘f'my'real'leas'er- with BERTRAND. (EXHIBIT 5). H \Dwfla‘sUI-RMNi—I BERTRANDS work plan was heavily promoted by the LMFT therap1st Who was treating me for PTSD; this Therapist evidenced as receivmg both. free B and reduced rent from BERTRAND for assisting him with my eXp101tat10n (EXHIBIT 6) Appellant BERTRAND has been bullying me now with 4lawsu1ts l ania -. person whom has been shown to have a bonafide claim against him for $98,003 i in unpaid wages. This is the worst wage theft ever in SB. California’s Court of Q. ‘ Appeals recently made vividly clear “sanctions should be reservedfor serlous 3-i' ' ' violations of the standard practice, not used as a bullying tactic”. (K1mv . i Westmoore Partners, Inc. 2011 it i l' - 201 Cal.App.4th 267,293.). '_ ? 1| NNNNNNNNNHHHHHI—‘Hl—‘p—Ar—I ooaI-tHcVDooqaxUIAmNr-tc COFFIN Bullying me when I was so obviously sick and unabletoappear 'f g ' on camera does not merit sanctions. 4 lawsuits based on fraud bullylngmewhen) I i P Wages are due to me is more than hurtful - these are bullying tactics? Will the courts finally uphold the laws and recognize the crimesof an‘jEXploitera? -' ~ ' SUBSTANTIAL BREACHES OF ETHICAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT: I ‘ The California Court of Appeals has also voiced overwhelmingly the'be'lief - that a party should only be sanctioned Where they have acted withbut’fsubstantial justification. (Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1177) I: OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO COMPEL/ SANCTIONS éa‘ge net 11}: g . JESSICA BERRY respectfully requests the Superior COurt recognizethe . I substantial justification which has compelled me to withdraw theipriOr‘ahsweiés .. to Appellants discovery questions, and her needing additional time tidaddressi the ‘ \DOOQQUIAOJNr—I problematic position Ive been placed In by my councils breach of ethics I‘he prior answers were assisted by JAN KAESTNER of GHIT’I‘ERMAN FELD whom I A Has failed to properly and ethically represent me in every regard. ._ . ‘. There is one additional matter for JESSICA BERRY to be concerned With .. i GHITTERMAN FELD did obtain through false pretense MISS BERRY’SApple -. ' ID and PASSWORD, and already multiple forms of evidence haVe surfaced to -. demonstrate that JESSICA BERRY’S identity has been stolen; so a: legitimate concern being that someone pretending to be MISS BERRY will pubhcly pest u 1' d I