[Summary of pleading] - 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AJ Weberman pro se 318 3

rd Avenue #520

New York 10010 Gary Kurtz pro per 20335 Ventura Blvd Suite 200 Woodland Hills, Calif. Superior Court of California

State of California

County of Los Angeles

Gary Kurtz,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. J. Weberman,

Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: LC084486 REVISED MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT

Alan Jules Weberman being duly sworn deposes and says that Judge Kaddo’s vacating the

default against me before it becomes a default judgment would further the interests of justice.

FACTS

On September 25, 2009 Judge Michael Harwin stated in open court, “Mr. Weberman you should

know that I am also admitted as an attorney in New York State so if need be we will try it there.” Judge

Harwin was serious in his tone and when I asked if he was a judge in both New York State and California

simultaneously he told his clerk to hang up the phone. This was an attempt by Judge Harwin to get me to

forfeit my defense that the California courts had no jurisdiction in this matter because by asking a judge to

recues himself I am implying that I recognize the Court’s jurisdiction. The law regarding personal

jurisdiction in California indicates that a defendant can file an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike

without waiving the right to contest personal jurisdiction. The law does not allow the defendant to ask the

judge to recuse himself and subsequently contest personal jurisdiction. See CA Code of Civ. Proc.

Section 418.10. Judge Harwin knew this an entrapped A. J. Weberman.

[Summary of pleading] - 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

However, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. Judge Harwin and his

Clerk in their haste to destroy my jurisdictional defense allowed a document to be filed that was prima

fascia procedurally and logically incorrect. The document was titled Peremptory Challenge and it cited

Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1 (the disqualification of a judge) the title suggested a challenge

based on 170.6 Peremptory Challenge. This document was illogical and should not have been filed but

should have been returned to the defendant. But Judge Harwin had to act fast before Defendant realized

what he was about to do negated his jurisdictional defense.

Your Honor, according to your own words in your ORDER STRIKING STATEMENT OF

DISQUALIFICATION you wrote, “The statement of disqualification is not verified. A statement of

disqualification must be signed and verified. Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3(c)(1); Code of Civil

Procedure § 2015.5. The object of verification is to assure good faith in the averments or statements of

the party. H.G. Bittleston Law and Collection Agency v. Howard (1916) 172 Cal. 357, 360; Silcox v. Lang

(1889) 78 Call 18, 122. Defendant's unsigned pleading may not be considered verified in accordance with

the provisions of C.C.P. section 446(a) as required by C.C.P. section 170.3(c)(1) and section 2015.5. The

statement of disqualification was not properly served.” The statement to Judge Harwin, was not verified.

Verification n. the declaration under oath or upon penalty of perjury that a statement or pleading is true,

located at the end of a document. A typical verification reads: "I declare under penalty of perjury under the

laws of the State of California that I have read the above complaint and I know it is true of my own

knowledge, except as to those things stated upon information and belief, and as to those I believe it to be

true. Executed January 3, 1995, at Monrovia, California. (signed) AJ Weberman, declarant."

In your Order Striking Statement of Disqualification filed on January 19, 2010 you also wrote

“Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3, subdivision (c)(1) requires that the statement of disqualification "be

personally served on the judge alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her clerk, provided that the judge is

present in the courthouse or in chambers." In this instance there was no personal service on either the

judge or the clerk. Defendant's proof of service filed with the pleading indicates service by U.S. Mail.” The

preceding was cited by you in an Order Striking Statement of Disqualification filed on January 19, 2010.

By your own knowledge of the law my Peremptory Challenge should not have been granted because it

[Summary of pleading] - 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

was faulty in at least three instances. Judge Harwin is still the judge in this matter, the jurisdictional issue

is still unresolved so you, Judge Kaddo, should recues yourself.

Dated this [Date]

_____________________________ [Attorneys' address] [Attorneys' names]