The other day a stranger penned an unusual comment on a blog post about an unfortunate run-in I had with a disreputable Film Festival director by the name of Richard Raddon.
~ Published at the Wordpress blog site ~
The individual queried me as to whether I was the same "Julian Ayrs" referred to in some Yanik legal skirmishes which were released in the public record on the Internet.
Mr. Yanik was a dishonest car dealership owner on Ventura Boulevard (V.B.S. Motors) , who I sued for damages in Los Angeles Superior Court, when he fraudulently "stole" a trade-in vehicle I owned - a silver Audi 5000 - and tried to sell-me a 1975 Corvette Stingray he did not have title to.
I expect the individual who wrote the comment noticed a couple of references on the Internet to a bankruptcy proceeding that Yanik and I were involved in.
~ He the debtor, me the creditor ~
From the gist of the court records, the curious Joe assumed that I "lost" the litigation.
As I noted in my response the next day, on the contrary.
The ruling from the Bankruptcy Court he stumbled across was just one phase of the litigation - which, when standing alone - gave the false impression (or tended to infer at least) that I did not prevail in the litigation.
Actually, there was a 7-year battle in the courts.
In the end, I was victorious!
But, there were quite a few bumps and jolts along the treacherous legal path.
You see, shortly after I obtained a judgment against Mr. Yanik in the Van Nuys Division of Los Angeles Superior Court and summarily placed a lien on his property in Porter Ranch, a deceitful lawyer - Steven A. Soloway - tried to overturn the judgment.
Fat chance!
After all, Soloway misrepresented the facts, which didn't end up boding well with the Judge.
In his "moving papers" the conniving wet-behind-the-ears legal eagle - who was not very bright in most respects - concealed the fact Yanik's "answers" had been stricken from the court record, which - in essence - rendered the judgment binding and final.
When I pointed out this "minor detail" to the Commissioner Manly Caloff (who was presiding over the proceeding on the morning of the hearing) he narrowed his eyes and turned to Soloway, whereupon he noted his disapproval, in open court.
"You didn't note that in your papers, Sir."
Well, needless to say, Soloway's "motion" to vacate the judgment was denied.
Shortly after that fiasco, the little sh** contacted me on the telephone one day, and had the audacity to make a low-ball offer to settle the judgment for a sum less than that awarded by the court.
When I turned down the offer, he angrily retorted that Yanik would file for bankruptcy.
"You'll get nothing," he hissed, before rudely hanging up in my ear.
A short while later, when there were no further communications forthcoming from Yanik's camp, I proceeded to check the bankruptcy files down at the Federal Courthouse because my intuition screamed at me "something is up".
I was shocked at what I uncovered!
Mr. Yanik and his dishonest lawyers at Mayer Glassman & Gaines not only filed the bankruptcy papers as promised, but neglected to list me as a creditor (or the lien I held on a major asset they were seeking to exclude from the bankruptcy proceeding by virtue of an alleged homestead exemption).
In addition, Yanik failed to disclose the bulk of his assets.
Simple oversight, eh?
For example, Mr. Yanik did not list a property transferred into his wife's maiden name prior the filing of his bankruptcy petition!
I found out about the asset in a highly-unusual way.
For example, one night shortly after the Sheriff slapped the lien on the house on my behalf, I cruised up to Porter Ranch to take a gander at the property.
As luck would have it, it was the night before "garbage" pick-up.
So, I cruised quietly up to the front curb with my headlights off, snatched up a bag of his trash, and proceeded to sift through it.
First, I stumbled across billing notices from his former attorney, a gentleman by the name of Hertz (Glendale).
I was able to discern that Yanik owed $10,000.00 in unpaid attorney fees.
No wonder he dumped his former legal counselor before moving on to slimy Soloway and the crafty sharks at Mayer Glassman & Gaines.
~ As to Hertz, well, I ended up having his car seized by the Sheriff's Department for failure to pay court-ordered sanctions that were due. I'll pen a post in the future, in which I'll give a blow-by-blow account of all the delicious details ~
Now to get back on track!
In addition to the startling revelation with regard to Hertz, I also secured a handful of cancelled checks from the trash bin with an unfamiliar surname stamped upon their face.
A perplexing scenario since Yanik's address was printed at the top left on the stubs.
Curious, indeed!
So, the next day, I trundled down to the Hall of Records and did a search on the intriguing foreign-sounding name.
Lo & behold!
After perusing the court records - marriage documents, too - I was able to determine that the individual named on the checks was Yanik's wife.
The larcenous couple were hiding assets under her maiden name!
Con-artist Yanik - who, I later discovered had ripped-off dozens of consumers in the auto business over the years under a handful of aliases - actually had the gall to perjure himself on the schedule of assets, too, when he stated in the affirmative that there weren't any property transfers prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition.
Immediately, I filed a "complaint against discharge", and informed the court of Yanik's fraudulent actions.
But, in Federal Bankruptcy Court - Judge Greenwald - was a dud in the "justice" department.
Within a short span of time, it was obvious to me that his Honor was obviously derelict in his duties, since the legal proceedings dragged on for months on end without much headway on the issues of fraud and perjury.
I was also forced to consider the possibility that the bench-warmer was prejudiced against litigants who appeared in his court environs, In Pro Per.
By the way, it struck me incredulous that Yanik was the alleged debtor - and I, the creditor - yet he was the one able to hire a high-priced lawyer (unlike moi) to represent his "interests" in the Federal Bankruptcy Court.
Hence, the reason I requested a waiver of filing fees, which was summarily denied by the Court Clerk's office - and later - by the Appellate Court in Pasadena in spite of the fact I was entitled to the privilege according to Statute.
In fact, the Justices' ruling on that issue alone was not legally sound; according to applicable statutes, I was entitled to the relief sought.
That "call" by imbecile Justices - Poole, Beezer and T.G. Nelson - was the one that ended up on the Internet which gives the false impression that I did not prevail in the Yanik litigation.
A second ruling, in respect to a motion to "lift" the automatic bankruptcy stay was denied, but such a ruling is never "fatal" in a bankruptcy proceeding.
The litigation continues on at that juncture, until the Bankruptcy court determines how the spoils - if any - will be divided among the debtor and creditors.
Notwithstanding, I later prevailed in the Bankruptcy action - and hence - further established that the Justices' assumption there was no likelihood of "succeeding in the litigation" turned out to be incorrect and in "error" as a matter of law.
It should be noted that a Judicial Watchdog Agency agreed with my assessment, at which point, a post I penned on the issues was duly published on their web site for all court-room wranglers to peruse!
In spite of all these stressful side excursions in the courts, I plodded on.
Even still, Greenwald's arrogant attitude irked me!
Yanik was passing himself off as a destitute debtor in an unjust battle with an aggressive creditor who was trying to "steal" his home.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
Finally, out of frustration, I filed a suit against Judge Greenwald for being derelict in his duties.
It was worth a shot.
At least I'd throw the spotlight on Greenwald and his questionable court maneuverings - and, if I was lucky - prove to the authorities that Yanik's bankruptcy was fraudulent in nature.
Shortly after the suit was filed in Federal District Court, a wild series of events unfolded that turned the whole wild-goose chase into an absurd comedy of errors!
The case against Greenwald was handed over to Andrew A. Hauk - a cantankerous old Federal Judge appointed by Johnson in the sixties - who, as fate would have it - hated the thought of an In Pro Per litigant in his midst.
When I stood before him to argue the merits of my case, he belittled me in front of all the attorneys and witnesses in the gallery, and then - out-of-the-blue - threatened to throw me in jail for merely attempting to argue the finer legal points of the case.
"You think you're so smart. A Dox Quixote, are you?"
Suddenly, there was a collective gasp from a handful of shocked observers in the courtroom.
"Well, you're just spinning your wheels, young man," he barked at me from the bench after the buzz died down a tad.
Needless to say, I was in a tailspin.
"How would you like it if I threw you in jail," he cackled maniacally!
"Sir, you conduct is inapproriate," I managed to muster up amid a sea of emotion that was now overwhelming me.
On the heels of that sharp retort, I stormed out of the courtroom as Hauk angrily shouted from the bench:
"You, come back here!"
Once outside, I dashed over to the Law Library to research the issues, then proceeded to file a complaint against the old coot with the Justices in charge at the Commission on Judicial Performance in San Francisco. (9th Circuit Court of Appeal)
As it turned out, Hauk had offended many litigants over the years.
For example, when a female attorney became frustrated by his insulting beligerent behaviour one day, Hauk turned to his clerk and flippantly remarked in an aside loud enough for her to hear:
"Oh, they get that way once a month."
And, he was known to refer to environmentalists as a pack of "pointy-head" do-gooders in a derogatory fashion, when their bevy of expert witnesses appeared before him for a hearing.
And, it you can believe it, he once lamented in open court that all immigrants were faggots!
For some inexplicable reason, no complainant managed to get Hauk censured for his despicable conduct.
But, I did!
When word came back that Hauk would be barred from hearing Civil Rights Cases, and that he was being censured for his reprehensible "un-Judge-like" conduct which reflected negatively on the integrity of the court, there were cheers all around.
The LA Times wrote a feature in which I was the star player, for instance.
And, on the heels of that article, Fox News proceeded to rake the old bench-warmer over the coals.
For example, when reporters determined that Hauk was at a conference for Judges near their studios, they camped outside of the facility, then ambushed the unsuspecting jurist.
As he tried to scurry to his car, reporters stuck a microphone and camera in his face, and taunted him.
"Sir, some people say you are crazy. Are you?"
With the glare of the spotlight on his face, he angrily retorted into the lens:
"Poppycock! Poppycock!"
Throughout the evening, Fox News used the teasers to publicize the upcoming news bite on the disciplinary action being taken against Judge Andrew A. Hauk by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to my complaint.
Essentially, Hauk was totally humiliated and disgraced in public on National Television.
Then, Associated Press picked up the story.
Now, enquiring minds were avidly lapping up the bizarre tale about the wild-and-woolley Federal Judge around the globe!
Then, I became a hero in legal circles, when American Lawyer published a story disclosing all the nasty details of his despicable conduct, my valiant efforts to ensure Hauk was punished for his offending misdeeds, and so forth and so on.
But, most important, my litigation went back to Judge Greenwald in the Bankrtupcy court.
Now, we were cooking with gas!
At this juncture, Yanik's lawyers abandoned him, and it was just him and me in open court.
Right off the bat, he agreed to a settlement - and thereafter - monthly payments commenced.
On occasion when we met in the hall outside of Greenwald's courtroom, he'd threaten me - cry poverty - and tired to squirm out of the settlement agreement.
But, I remained strong.
Once, in open court, Yanik angrily shouted at the Judge and appeared ready to engage in some physical violence towards me.
Greenwald warned Yanik he'd have the Federal Police bodily remove him from the courtroom if he didn't behave.
Needless, to say, it doesn't surprise me that Yanik ended up in hot water for allegedly razing a historic landmark - Johnie's Broiler - which he was leasing.
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnie's_Broiler
News Report (re: Yanik misdemeanour charges)
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2007/03/northridgian_go.php
But, in the end, he finally paid the settlement in full.
In the wake of the legal victory, I felt vindicated.
Unfortunately, Yanik is still on-the-loose ripping off consumers left and right, as you read this.
Sad!
The lesson I learned?
Buyer beware, for one.
And, two, avoid litigation if possible.
After all, lawsuits amount to nothing more than attorney rants - which only end - when one of the litigants runs out of paper ($$$).
Bottom line? Try to settle your disputes amicably and in private.
And, use some common sense.
Don't allow attorneys to profit from your sorrows, unless you're a masochist, of course.
The havoc Yanik wrought on this historic landmark
No comments:
Post a Comment