THE BULLCRAP BUSTERS
We Take The Bullying By The Horns
THE ENFORCER BULLY
By Elana Laham © 2013 Elana Laham
THE ENFORCER BULLY POLICE
The enforcer bully enforces the social disorder of the Bully Culture. Any and every bully who has social stature such as parents, teachers, or doctors can and do play the enforcer bully role. The most salient enforcer bully of all is Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement generally consists of the justices (judges), the district attorney, and the police department. Throughout history the elite bully by hook or by crook misuses power to appoint itself as rulers over society by employing a military force to do its bidding. The military force is made up of an army, a navy, an air force, and more discrete government operations, such as the CIA, and the FBI. The local police force is also a branch of the elite bully’s military might. Therefore, there are corrupt police force agencies that have taken up the role of the enforcer bully. The enforcer bully’s primary objective is NOT to uphold our society’s laws and keep our society’s order, but to fabricate crime and spread violence.
The elite bully uses the enforcer bully police officer as a Billy Club to clobber innocent individuals over the head with who can’t or won’t conform to the Bully Culture’s DOUBLE STANDARDS. At the same token, the elite bully works relentlessly hard at brainwashing the populace to believe that the police officer is a “peace” officer whose sole obligation is to serve and protect humanity. This explains why so many people will not even consider the possibility, let alone the probability, that there are those police officers who are enforcer bullies and therefore will 1) bare false witness and 2) plant false evidence and, 3) frame innocent law abiding citizens for trumped up charges of one sort or another, and 4) incarcerate innocent law abiding citizens by adhering to the anti-American motto of “guilty until proven innocent.” These so-called “peace” officers engage in the illegal, amoral, and unethical practice of POLICE VIOLENCE. It is as if the enforcer bully police officer wears the word “busted” on his belt like some sort of badge of honor. And so it is the innocent not the guilty who are subjected to police bullying otherwise known as “police misconduct” and “police brutality”.
Another way in which the elite bully brainwashes the populace to believe in the enforcer bully police officer is through the police oath. The police oath mandates that a police officer be sworn to do his duty, which is to uphold “law” and “order” and to “serve” and “protect”. But exactly whose law and order is the enforcer bully police officer upholding, and precisely what is the enforcer bully police officer serving and protecting?
Thanks to the elite bully, the enforcer bully police officer’s job description is to HARASS some poor slob down on his luck that is not bothering anybody, such as the prostitute who gets arrested for selling her body as a sex object for money who risks contracting sexually transmitted diseases, yet turns the trick anyway so that she can survive on the streets. Thanks to the elite bully, the enforcer bully police officer’s job description is to HARASS the thrown away child who, abandoned by his own family, gets arrested for possession of a thimble full of some illegal drug that he is taking to escape the insanity of the world that he was born into. Thanks to the elite bully, the enforcer bully police officer’s job description is to HARASS the homeless vagrant for standing on the public taxpayers’ sidewalk holding up a cardboard sign that says, “Please help, need work, want food”. Thanks to the elite bully, the enforcer bully police officer’s job description is to HARASS the patriotic American citizen for taking his American rights seriously.
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING THROWN INTO A CLASS WITH A BAD NAME by the ENFORCER BULLY POLICE OFFICER.
Meanwhile, the enforcer bully police officer does not put behind bars white-collar crime – such as the corrupt judge who degrades the justice system by taking bribes. Or the corrupt politician that cheats his way into office by disenfranchising American votes. Or the corrupt business entrepreneur that fraudulently rips off America’s work force and consumer base – America’s economy – while financing its enterprise through the American Government’s tax paying dollars. Instead, the “peace” officer is trying to recruit tax-paying citizens to help police departments across the nation catch real criminals such as serial killers, serial rapists, and serial robbers. [See “America’s Most Wanted” Show for further details]. For the enforcer bully police officer has become too busy busting people who are not bothering others to be bothered with catching the real menaces of society.
Thanks to the elite bully, another aspect of the enforcer bully police officer’s job description is to violate America’s justice system so that it only serves those able and willing to buy justice. Paid off District Attorney’s offices will prosecute frivolous lawsuits for the right price. Bought off defense lawyers will refuse to represent their own clients for the right price. Judges who take bribes will render unlawful, amoral, and unethical verdicts for the right price. And last but not least, jurors are no longer randomly selected individuals when they are selected and sworn in to rule in favor of the highest bidder.
Due to the elite bully, there are corrupt police agencies who will only serve and protect the class of CORRUPT individuals who BREAK THE LAW. Your tax paying dollars are no longer appreciated by the enforcer bully police officer. Yet, it is your hard earned “TAX PAYING” dollars that are financing corrupt law enforcement. The duty of today’s enforcer bully police officer is to BREAK THE LAW for those people who consider themselves ABOVE THE LAW. Will the duty of tomorrow’s enforcer bully police officer be to round up, throw into a cart, shoot dead, and dump into a pit full of rotting human carcasses, those of us who don’t or can’t fit into the Bully Culture? If so, then all that will be missing from the enforcer bully police officers” arm will be yesteryear’s World War II Neo Nazi Swastika Band.
For those of you who have been fortunate enough to have never had an encounter with the enforcer bully police officer, I wish you well. However by standing by and looking on refusing to resist and protest police misconduct and police brutality it is you who are making our society UNSAFE.
ERVING
(Inspired by the song entitled
“The Ballad of Irving” by Frank Gallop)
There were many heroes out in the West.
This one had a triple bypass on his chest.
He was mean and ornery through and through.
That was kind of strange ‘cause he was a coward, too.
They called him Erving.
Nice man Erving...Good husband Erving...Great father Erving.
He was the hundred and forty second fastest
Bull Crapper in the West.
Erving…Erving…Erving.
He came from the old money making dead,
dragging his buttocks so a millionaires he could wed.
He always followed his narcissistic wishes.
He divorced his first wife too poor to buy dishes.
They called him Erving.
Nice man Erving...Good husband Erving...Great father Erving.
He was the hundred and forty second fastest
Bull Crapper in the West.
Erving…Erving…Erving.
Through his vicarious hope that she give him fortune and fame,
he drove his firstborn daughter completely insane.
Then, upon his second daughter he tried to put the blame,
when all that he gave her was misery and pain.
They called him Erving.
Nice man Erving...Good husband Erving...Great Father Erving.
He was the hundred and forty second fastest
Bull Crapper in the West.
Erving…Erving…Erving.
His only son became the bastion of the family.
But he was plagued with jealousy
that his second daughter was the only member of the family
who graduated with honors and two university degrees,
and without any help from her mother, or from he.
They called him Erving.
Nice man Erving...Good husband Erving...Great Father Erving.
He was the hundred and forty second fastest
Bull Crapper in the West.
Erving…Erving…Erving.
When his three children finally left the nest,
“I can no longer neglect or abuse them”, one day, Erving confessed.
Then, while he was still twirling his verbal salvos around,
Butterfingers Erving gunned himself down.
They called him Erving.
Nice man Erving...Good husband Erving...Great father Erving.
He was the hundred and forty second fastest
Bull Crapper in the West.
Erving…Erving…Erving.
By Elana Laham © 2013
The following are some examples of police brutality and police misconduct that the enforcer bully police officer engages in:
(1) The enforcer bully police officer will deny you your American Constitutional Rights – the Fifth Amendment – your Miranda Rights, which states that, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” This means that, if you are being accused of a crime you have the right not to discuss the matter with the police even if they arrest you. It is against the law for a police officer NOT to inform you of your Miranda Rights.
(2) The enforcer bully police officer will deny you your American Constitutional Rights the First Amendment – your Freedom of Speech, which states that it is NOT libel or slander to state something about someone to the public if it is the truth or if it is an opinion, which is a belief one has about something or someone based upon facts that one has observed through one’s own personal life experiences.
(3) The enforcer bully police officer will respond to bogus 911 calls against you. Unless there is a real emergency, it is ILLEGAL to call 911.
(4) The enforcer bully police officer will file false police reports against you that are based upon hear say not eye witnesses.
(5) The enforcer bully police officer will attempt to plant false evidence against you in your home by seemingly innocently inviting him self into it without any valid reason to. Don’t ever let the enforcer bully police officer come into your living space unless and until he has a bona fide search warrant to. Then by law you have to let him enter.
(6) The enforcer bully police officer will attempt to plant false evidence against you in your vehicle by appearing to have the authority to enter your car without your permission. If you are in your car don’t let the enforcer bully police officer enter your car unless and until he has a bona fide search warrant to do so. Then by law you have to let him enter. If you are suspicious that an enforcer bully police officer is making an effort to get you busted for false evidence, check your car for strange devices attached to it or connected underneath it if and when you have been away from your car for a while.
(7) The enforcer bully police officer will recruit informants – ex convicts to work off their so-called community service – by a) setting you up for trumped up charges of one sort or another such as dope. Innocent citizen beware! If you live below the fourth floor of a dwelling you can be falsely arrested for possession of drugs. If you live on the fourth floor or higher of a dwelling it becomes totally implausible that you are a dope user as no one can smell airborne drugs from such a distance away from ground level.
The following is one tactic that the enforcer bully police officer employs in order to frame you as being a dope user:
Informants are used to establish a pattern of your whereabouts by loitering around your home, or if you are traveling, by hacking into private computer bases to locate your whereabouts if you are lodging at a hotel. Next, informants contact the authorities and falsely proclaim the infamous phrase of, “I smell smoke” and falsely claim that the so-called smell of dope is coming from your window. Then the enforcer bully police officer(s) put you under false arrest for possession of dope. After that, the informant poses as a false witness in a court of law against you for illegal possession of dope.
(8) The enforcer bully police officer will recruit informants – ex-convicts to work off their so-called community service – by b) staging a vehicular accident to get you killed while making it look like you were at fault for your own death. Innocent citizen beware! If they know the car you drive and/or the license plate you own they will involve you in a road hazard to get rid of you and bankrupt you for being the so-called cause and result of your own demise.
The following is one tactic the enforcer bully police officer employs in order to entrap you in a life threatening car collision:
Informants are used to establish a pattern as to when and where you are going to be in a particular place at a specific time by monitoring photo enforced street cameras or tracking your cell phone signals. [READER’S NOTE: A GLOBAL POSITIONING SATELLITE (GPS) MAP ONLY HAS INCOMING NOT OUTGOING SIGNALS SO IT CANNOT BE TRACKED]. Next, a hit and run driver slams into your unsuspecting vehicle. Then, false witness informants show up at the accident site if no Good Samaritan comes forth as a true witness to the car crash. After that, the enforcer bully police officer(s) come to make a falsified police report. Finally, the bogus other driver informants shows up to falsely claim damages. Last but not least your automobile insurance company, you know the ones who are supposed to fight for you, falsely accuse you of being the “at fault” driver by ignoring the truth – the wounds on your car – and paying attention to the lies – the fake testimonies of the false witnesses and the bogus driver, and the fabricated conclusions that the enforcer bully police officer(s) make about a traffic collision that they did not eye witness based on nothing more and nothing less than the hear say of their phony witnesses and driver informants.
FORGERY IS A CRIME!
The following is a real life scenario that illustrates how the police treat law-breakers of the United States of America:
During the RED HOT real estate market of 2002, the Lahams listed their condo located at 164 Streamwood, Irvine, California 92620, with PRESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE, which is located at 1900 South Street Suite 119 Cerritos, California, 90703, phone (562) 809-8989, Fax (562) 809-8979. Its owner was ALAN CHIANG and its selling agent was RICHARD FENG. The Laham’s Condo, located at 164 Streamwood, California 92620, sat UNSOLD on the RED HOT Real Estate Market of 2002 for FIVE MONTHS. On April 29, 2002, the Laham’s listed their Condo for sale for $180,000.00 with Presidential Real Estate. It did not close Escrow until 10/1/02 for the MEDIATED sale price of $180,480.00.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Southern California Real Estate History for Irvine for the year 2002 then please go to hyperlink Irvine Real Estate Market 2002 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Residential Listing Agreement, the Mediated Settlement Agreement, and the Central Escrow Incorporated Closing Statement then please go to hyperlink Residential Listing, Mediated Settlement & Central Escrow at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Presidential Real Estate almost locked the Lahams into a sale contract at a price below market value. After waiting almost two months without any offers during the RED HOT Real Estate Market of 2002, Presidential Real Estate told the Lahams that a potential buyer was willing to make an offer for the Laham’s condo on 6/20/02 in the amount of $175,000.00. Selling agent, Richard Feng told the Lahams that it was a good offer and to take it. The Lahams did not agree, suspicious that the offer was too low.
If the reader is interested in viewing the original offer then please go to hyperlink The Original Offer at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Richard Feng then suggested that the Lahams propose a counter offer in the amount of $178,000.00, which the Lahams did on 6/21/02. But after they left the broker’s office they believed that the counter offer that Richard Feng had steered them into was also too low. Though it was Richard Feng’s job to know and advise the Lahams on what the best asking price was for their condo, the Lahams decided to do their own research. The Lahams discovered that according to the RED HOT Real Estate Market trend of 2002, the Laham’s original asking sale price of $180,000.00 was the best offer for their property. The Lahams were now stuck in a bad sale.
If the reader is interested in viewing the counter offer #1 then please go to hyperlink The Counter Offer #1 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Finalizing this bad sale depended upon Richard Feng acknowledging receipt of the buyer’s acceptance of the seller’s Counter Offer #1 before its stated deadline, by initialing the counter offer. But when the Lahams received a copy of Counter Offer #1, Richard Feng’s initials appeared to have been forged. The Lahams showed the questionable initials of RF (Richard Feng), with other examples of RF, that they witnessed Richard Feng sign, to two highly qualified handwriting analysts. Both of the handwriting analysts’ opinions were that the initials RF on Counter Offer #1 had been FORGED.
If the reader is interested in viewing the initials in item #8 of counter offer #1 then please go to hyperlink The Forged Initials of Counter Offer #1 at www.bullcrapbusters.com
If the reader is interested in viewing the handwriting analysis of highly qualified handwriting expert J. Richard Nadeau and W. A. Bill Hatch then please go to hyperlink Handwriting Experts Backgrounds and Conclusions at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 3/28/03, the Lahams went to file a criminal report with the Los Angeles Sheriff Department’s Cerritos Station, since per CA Penal Code Section 470 (a) and (d), forgery is a crime.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Penal Code Section 470 (a) and (d) document then please go to hyperlink Forgery - California Penal Code 470 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following is what transpired:
On 3/28/03, the Lahams spoke to Deputy Floan regarding they desire to file a criminal report of forgery. Deputy Floan asked them whom they wanted to complain about. After they told him they wanted to complain about President Real Estate, he told them to speak to Deputy Smith, Serrano, and Bastian. The Lahams then waited over two hours before Deputies Smith, Serrano, and Bastian assisted them regarding their complaint. Deputy Smith told the Lahams that they could NOT file a criminal report since the Lahams had already sought civil redress. When the Lahams asked him what LAW says about this, he said, “I don’t know”.
If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 4/3/03 paragraph #1, sent from the Lahams to Captain Ted S. Siara then please go to hyperlink 1st Letter to Captain Ted S. Siara at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 4/1/03, Sergeant Robert McLin, badge #060704 of the LASD Forgery and Fraud Detail Department, told the Lahams that it was legal to file a criminal report, as it did not matter whether they file a criminal or civil complaint first.
If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 4/3/03 paragraph #2, sent from the Lahams to Captain Ted S. Siara then please go to hyperlink 1st Letter to Captain Ted S. Siara at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 4/3/03, the Lahams addressed a complaint to Captain Ted S. Siara of the LASD Cerritos Station that they were being denied the right to file a criminal complaint of Forgery and again they requested to file one.
If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 4/3/03 paragraph #3, sent from the Lahams to Captain Ted S. Siara then please go to hyperlink 1st Letter to Captain Ted S. Siara at www.bullcrapbusters.com
On 4/3/03, the Lahams received a FAX reply from Captain Siara. He told them to contact him by phone at (562) 860-0044. The Lahams were suspicious that Captain Siara was going to give them “oral crap” – an undocumented wrongful reply – so that he could deny to any third party that he ever stated such. Therefore, on 4/7/03 the Lahams sent a FAX to Captain Siara requesting that he FAX us his replies.
If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 4/3/03 sent from Ted S. Siara to the Lahams then please go to hyperlink 1st Letter from Captain Ted S. Siara at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 4/7/03 the Lahams told Captain Siara that, “you didn’t fail to meet our expectations; you failed to enforce the law…” In addition the Laham’s told Captain Siara that, “you will either allow us to exercise our citizens’ rights or you will not”. The Lahams also requested that Captain Siara reply in writing. Furthermore, the Lahams stated, “In regard to the party against whom we wish to file our forgery report, are they on some kind of ‘short list’ of yours because they are the pretty people or give charity to your Sheriff’s Station?” If anyone complains about them, you refuse to take the complaints?”
If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 4/7/03 paragraph #1 and #2, sent from the Lahams to Captain Ted S. Siara then please go to hyperlink 2nd Letter to Captain Ted S. Siara at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 4/7/03, Captain Siara stated in his letter to the Lahams that he would 1) investigate the matter that his deputies failed to investigate a Forgery within his jurisdiction and 2) coordinate an investigation of the Forgery. Per his request, the Lahams addressed their legitimate Forgery complaint to Lieutenant Gary De Cew on 4/15/03, along with the Counter Offer #1 document in question, exemplars of Richard Feng’s initials, and conclusion statements of two handwriting experts.
If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 4/7/03 paragraph #1, sent from Captain Ted S. Siara to the Lahams then please go to hyperlink 2nd Letter from Captain Ted S. Siara at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 4/15/03, the Lahams addressed their forgery complaint to Lieutenant Gary De Cew regarding their allegation that Presidential Real Estate forged the initials of listing agent Richard Feng on paragraph #8 of Counter Offer #1, which was an offer to purchase residential property. The Lahams included in their correspondence the evidence that above said document was a forgery according to Handwriting Analyst J. Richard Nadeau and Handwriting Analyst W.A. Hatch.
If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 4/15/03 paragraph #4, #5 and #6, along with the handwriting analysis from handwriting experts J. Richard Nadeau and W.A. Hatch sent from the Lahams to Lieutenant Gary De Cew then please go to hyperlink 1st Letter to Lieutenant Gary De Cew at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 6/23/03, Cerritos Station Captain Michael R. McDermott’s response that the Lahams were denied the right to file a forgery complaint was, “Our investigation revealed that the initial actions of Deputy Smith regarding this incident were reasonable and within established Department policy and guidelines.”
If the reader is interested in viewing the letter dated 6/23/03 paragraph #1 from Michael R. McDermott to the Lahams then please go to hyperlink 1st Letter from Captain Michael R. McDemott at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 7/23/03, in a telephone conversation with Sergeant McLin, who was an investigator from the Fraud Detail Unit, he told the Lahams that, “The person who did the forgery denies it’s a forgery”, and “There is no evidence of a crime”, and “I am not conducting an investigation”, and “This matter is closed out”, and “I refuse to write a letter to document the close-out of this case.”
On 7/29/03, the Lahams sent a correspondence to Sergeant McLin that stated, “of course the person who did the forgery would deny that it was a forgery!” How can Sergeant McLin claim that there is no evidence of a crime if 1) he never investigated it and 2) the opinions of two HIGHLY qualified handwriting experts were that it is a forgery? The first handwriting expert, J. Richard Nadeau, assisted the F.B.I. in identifying and capturing the UNIBOMBER – sender of letter bombs, and published a book about handwriting analysis. He is a Board Certified Document Examiner and American College of Forensic Examiners. The second handwriting expert, W.A. Hatch, was a Sergeant in charge of the Check and Forgery Detail of the Santa Ana Police Department under handwriting expert Harold Ely. He is also a court qualified handwriting comparison expert. To Sergeant McLin’s refusal to investigate, and that the matter is closed, we also asked him if that was because the suspects are on the LASD’s pretty people list? To Sergeant McLin’s refused to document the close out of the case, the Lahams asked Sergeant McLin if that was because he has something to hide?
If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 7/29/03 paragraph #2, #3, #4, and #5 from the Lahams to Sergeant Robert McLin then please go to hyperlink 1st Letter to Sergeant Robert McLin at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 8/6/03, the Lahams asked Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, Captain McDermott, and Sergeant McLin if they ever read the book “Animal Farm”? It’s about how animals on a farm are given the rule by the pigs that LAWS ONLY APPLY TO SOME, NOT ALL.
If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 8/6/03 paragraph #1 from the Lahams to Sergeant Roger McLin and copies sent to Sheriff Leroy D Baca, and Captain Michael r. McDermott then please go to hyperlink 2nd Letter to Sergeant Robert McLin at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The Lahams received NO reply from ANYONE at LASD.
We reported to two anti police misconduct websites - Cop Watch and Twisted Badge - how the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department refused to report an apparent forgery.
If the reader is interested in viewing the e-mails we sent to Cop Watch and Twisted Badge anti police abuse websites, please go to the following hyperlinks at www.bullcrapbusters.com:
WHO IN THE WORLD ARE
MR. MICHAEL LAHAM & MRS. ELANA LAHAM?
The following is a real life scenario that illustrates how the enforcer bully police officer mistreats law-abiding citizens of the United States of America who stand up for their American rights:
Mr. Laham and Mrs. Laham were singled out for relentless malicious vicious police bullying by both the Irvine Police Department and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in Southern California. Mr. Laham and Mrs. Laham were “Joe Quo” and “Jane Doe” average American citizens. Michael is a Senior Electrical Engineer for the Boeing Company who has been given Top Secret Government and Government clearances for his job. Elana is a retired Los Angeles Unified School District Special Education and Regular Education Teacher. Michael and Elana happened to be middle aged, white collar, working class professional folks who minded their own business.
During the summer of 1998 the Lahams decided to move back into their Condo that Michael owned for sixteen years. They sold their home at 2506 East Del Amo Blvd. in Lakewood, California 90712 since the neighbors got very hostile with them for fixing up their home and painting their house a vibrant orange color. The Lahams called their old neighborhood Flake Wood instead of Lakewood because most of the neighbors’ houses were so un-kept that the paint was literally flaking off of them. The Condo was located at 164 Streamwood in the Springs Condominiums in the so-called SAFE town of Irvine, in the state of California, zip code 90260. The Springs Condominium was being managed by the Keystone Pacific Property Management Association, which is located at 16845 Von Karmen Suite 200, Irvine, California, 92606. Phone (949) 833-2600. Fax (949) 477-0945. Keystone Pacific Property Management Association knew that the Lahams always paid their association dues early and never paid any dues late, for the entire sixteen-year period that they owned his property. The Lahams got busy re-decorating their condo, which remained peaceful and uneventful until the year of 2000.
During that year, Elana became aware of an ongoing disturbance in her neighborhood. It was excessive noise being made by a KATHRYN DENISE MORRELL, otherwise known as “Ms. Loud House” who was a neighbor across the way that neither Mr. or Mrs. Laham knew. Like clockwork every morning, Ms. Loud House screamed “Vincent!” at the top of her lungs at her son. After several weeks of this, unwelcome and uninvited siren of an alarm clock, Mrs. Laham politely asked Ms. Loud House if she would please refrain from shouting so early in the a.m. And that is when all of the trouble started. Trouble that made Michael and Elana Laham’s life so unbelievably unbearable that it was worse than any nightmare that either of them could ever have imagine, ever having.
BIGOTRY…BIGOTRY…BIGOTRY
The relentless surrealistic nightmarish reality began with Kathryn Denise Morrell’s reaction to Elana Laham’s simple and reasonable request. Instead of quieting down the inconsiderate racket that she was making, Ms. Loud House got unjustifiably angry. Her reaction to her own unwarranted anger was to go behind Mrs. Laham’s back and spread vindictive false rumors about her and her husband. The neighbors, none of whom even knew Mr. Michael or Mrs. Elana Laham, not even by name or by face, and none of whom Mr. Michael or Mrs. Elana Laham knew, not even by name or by face, instead of minding their own business, made the decision to believe Kathryn Denise Morrell’s lies and joined in a fight that was not even theirs to gang up on bullying the Lahams.
The derogatory gossip got passed along from one neighbor to the next like a hot potato. It began with the lie that it was Michael and Elana Laham who were making the excessive noise. The Lahams were not too worried about the gossip for they were certain that as easily as it got started it would stop on its own accord. But that never happened. Instead, like a raging wild fire out of control and unchecked, Loud Houses’s slander escalated as if it had a life of its own. Soon enough, it mutated into outrageously unfounded claims. In Mr. Michael and Mrs. Elana Lahams’ case it was accusations that they engaged in criminal activity and on a regular basis. Hence, even though Micheal and Elana Laham had NO criminal record of any kind for their entire lives, and even though crimes had been going on in the neighborhood long before they had ever moved into it, the Lahams became the scapegoat for anything and everything illegal that took place within the community. And even though no one ever witnessed the Lahamsc doing anything wrong, every time a crime occurred the neighbors falsely accused the couple of doing criminal activity and called the police on them.
The following is an excerpt from Police Report #00-23319 Narrative entitled “Malicious Mischief” was the first false police report filed against Mr. Micheal and Mrs. Elana Laham by a neighbor who they did not know and who did not know them:
“On 12/3/00, at approximately 1416 hours (2:16 p.m.), I (Officer L. Miller #5276) was dispatched to…reference paint, which was poured on a rear gate at the location. Upon my arrival, I met with victim, Sadegh Davari, who told me the following: On 12/3/00, at approximately 1300 hours (1:00 p.m.) Davari discovered blue paint splashed over…the gate. The gate opened from his carport area to his rear patio. Davari said over the past couple of months, he has had to call the police a couple of times due to excessive noise coming from his neighbor’s condominium late at night. He said he does not know the name of the residents...and has only seen them a couple of times. He said they acted quite hostile towards him. (This was a complete lie! The Lahams never met nor ever had any contact with the Davaris). Davari said no one saw the suspects throw paint on his gate; however, he said he believed the residents (the Lahams) poured the paint on his gate because they were upset with him for calling the police.” (This was another complete lie! The Lahams never even knew the Davaris’ called the police on them for neither the Davaris nor the police ever told the Lahams that the Davaris had made any complaints against them about anything.)
This neighbor, named Davari, accused Mr. and Mrs. Laham of making excessive noise late at night, which was the rumor that Ms. Loud House circulated about Mr. and Mrs. Laham because Mrs. Laham had asked Ms. Loud House to stop making excessive noise so early in the morning. In addition, this neighbor, named Davari was the one making excessive noise. The Lahams lived directly above the Davaris on the second floor. Yet every weekend the Davaris’ threw a family party where their kids played handball against the Laham’s bedroom window and their guests played music that was so loud that it vibrated the Lahams living room floor. The Lahams took photographs of the children banging their ball against the Lahams bedroom window as evidence of the Davaris regular excessive noise making, and filed a complaint about it along with the photos to the Keystone Pacific Property Management Association. They Keystone Pacific Property Management Association did ultimately and absolutely nothing about it.
Officer L Miller #5276 who wrote up the above Police Report also went on to say something that was completely irrelevant to the above Police Report as well as untrue. He states, “Officer Allan and Officer Casas responded to my location because a couple of weeks prior, they were on a car stop on Irvine Blvd, just to the south of the Springs Condominiums. At that time, the female resident at 164 Streamwood… was screaming profanities to them. Mr. Michael Laham remembers what really happened that night. He had gone to the Dumpster to throw trash away, which was right next to Irvine Blvd were those two police officers were, when he suddenly heard someone yell “Doughnut men!” After reading the above police report the Lahams were appalled that these two police officers LIED on their own police report by falsely accusing the Lahams of screaming PROFANITIES at them. BEYOND THAT, WHEN DID THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DECIDE THAT THE WORDS “DOUGHNUT MEN” IS PROFANITY???!!!
If the reader is interested in viewing the above Police Report # 00-23319 then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Report #00-23319 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
“On December 3, 2000 Mr. Michael Laham and Mrs. Elana Laham departed Los Angeles International California Airport at 6:25 a.m. and arrived at Seattle/Tacoma Washington Airport at 9:03 a.m. on Alaska Airlines Flight #97 on a business trip.” The Lahams left their place of residence in Irvine California at 3:00 a.m. on 12/3/00 in order to arrive via Taxi at Los Angeles International Airport California in time to catch their flight at 6:25 a.m. for an eleven-day business trip. Thusly, the Lahams did not commit the above said act of vandalism, which occurred around 12/3/00 at 1:00 in the afternoon. (Reference Travel Log and Travel Expense Report from the Company that Michael Laham worked for).
If the reader is interested in viewing the above Travel Log & Travel Expense Report then please go to hyperlink Travel Log & Travel Expense Report at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following is an excerpt from Police Report # 01-02842 Narrative entitled “Vandalism” was the second false police report filed against Mr. Michael and Mrs. Elana Laham this time by Ms. Loud House herself:
“On 2/12/01, at 1856 hours, I (Officer Velarde #294) was dispatched to…in reference to a vandalism report. Kathryn Denise Morrell said she wanted to make a vandalism report in regards to her front screen door, which had been ‘slashed’. She said unknown suspect(s) damaged the screen some time during the night on 2/8/01 and 2/9/01 between the hours of 1730 and 1700…Morrell said on 2/4/01 at approximately 1730 hours, she discovered that her garden hose had been ‘severed’. She was unsure exactly when the hose was cut. Morrell did not…notify the police regarding these two occurrences of vandalism because no suspects were seen or heard. (That does not make any sense!) On this date, Morrell decided to contact the police to report these incidences because of ongoing problems she has had with her neighbors who live directly across from her... She said (there is a blank in the police report here) other neighbors have had ongoing problems with these residents. She believes the male resident…(She accuses Mr. Michael Laham but gets his name wrong!) was responsible for the vandalism to her vehicle. This vandalism was reported on 4/24/00 to the Irvine Police Department under another Police Report DR #00-7755.”
If the reader is interested in viewing the above Police Report # 01-02842 then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Report #01-02842 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
So here we have a Police Report on 2/12/01 about vandalism to Morrell’s screen door and garden hose in which Morrell admits that she does not know who did it. And yet in the same police report it is mentioned that both Morrell and other neighbors have had ongoing problems with the Lahams when in fact it was Morrell (Ms. Loud House) who got all of the neighbors to make problems for the Lahams with her untrue and unwarranted slandering of them. In addition, here we have a Police Report on 2/12/01 about vandalism to Morrell’s screen door and garden hose in which Morrell admits that she does not know who did it and yet in the same police report it is mentioned that Morrell thinks Mr. Laham vandalized her car on 4/24/00, which supposedly happened an entire year ago!
Does this make any sense to you? It did not make any sense to the Lahams and so they requested a copy of the Police Report DR# 00-7755 regarding vandalism to M’s vehicle on 4/24/00 and guess what happened?
The Irvine Police Department per their own Internal Form entitled “Request for Police Report” signed by Investigator N. Berbiglia, dated 10/26/01 refused to give the Lahams a copy of the above Police Report they requested on the following grounds:
“No criminal activity.”
If the reader is interested in viewing the above Internal Form then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Internal Form at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The Lahams, desiring to verify the above information, wrote a letter to Michael Berkow, Chief of Police.
The following are the replies the Lahams received from the Chief of the Irvine Police Department, Michael Berkow, dated 1/14/02, and dated 2/12/02:
“Dear Mr. and Mrs. Laham: The report that you are seeking a copy of is a crime report. It is a report of vandalism…That case is still under investigation and California Law allows police departments TO WITHHOLD POLICE REPORTS FROM THE PUBLIC WHILE THE CRIMES ARE BEING INVESTIGATED. I would refer you to Government Code Section 6254 (f), which lists the types of reports that must be released to the public.” He then stated, “ The notes at the bottom of the form (he is referring to the internal document that the Irvine Police Department sent us dated 10/26/01) that you received indicate that the reference to your apartment did not amount to a criminal act…and that neither of you were considered ‘suspects’ in this investigation.” Also he states “I have received your letter dated January 12, 2002, where you are again requesting copies of two Irvine Police Department crime reports (DR# 00-7755 and #01-2842)…your are not entitled copies of these reports. Sincerely signed Michael Berkow, Chief of Police”
If the reader is interested in viewing the above letters dated 1/14/02 and 2/12/02 from Michael Berkow, Chief of the Irvine Police Department, to the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Letters from Michael Berkow at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Suspicious that something was amiss, the Lahams did as Michael Berkow advised and looked up Government Code Section 6254 (f). According to the California Law entitled GCS 6254(f) that allows police departments to withhold their reports while under investigation and this is what they found –
Government Code Section 6254 (f) states “ Records of complaints to…any state or local police agency…SHALL DISCLOSE the names and addresses of persons involved in…the incident…the date, time, and location of the incident…statements of the parties involved in the incident…and any person suffering property loss…as the result of the incident caused by…vandalism.” Government Code Section 6254(f) then goes on to state “However, NOTHING IN THIS DIVISION SHALL REQUIRE THE DISCLOSURE of that portion of those investigative files that reflect the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.”
If the reader is interested in viewing Government Code Section 6254(f) then please go to hyperlink California Government Code Section 6254(f) at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The Lahams corresponded back to the Chief of the Irvine Police Department, Michael Berkow, that according to the very law that he cited, Government Code Section 6254(f), the Lahams were entitled to what is called the “Preliminary” Report which allows the public to have access to what SHALL BE DISCLOSED IN A REPORT – “the names and addresses of persons involved in…the incident…the date, time, and location of the incident…statements of the parties involved in the incident…and any person suffering property loss…as the result of the incident caused by…vandalism.” In addition the Lahams informed C.O.P. Michael Berkow that his very own Irvine Police Department disclosed two (2) copies of Police Reports DR 00-23319 entitled “Malicious Mischief” DR 01-18508 entitled “Vandalism” of which both contained “investigative” material in them that according to him the Lahams were not supposed to have. Moreover, his very own Irvine Police Department gave the Lahams a copy of Police Report DR 01-2842 entitled “Vandalism” which he explicitly stated that they could not have!
So the question remained: Why did Irvine Police Department give the Lahams copies of all of these above Police Reports if according to Michael Berkow their Chief of Police the Lahams were not allowed to have them?!
The Lahams concluded that the Irvine Police Department refused to give the Lahams a copy of the Police Report DR #00-7755 regarding vandalism to M’s vehicle on 4/24/00 because, according to the Irvine Police Department’s own above document DR#00-7755, the Irvine Police Department lied. NO vandalism to Kathryn Denise Morrell’s vehicle ever happened! All that the DR#00-7755 Police Report contained with in it were references made to the Lahams regarding excessive noise that supposedly was coming from their residence.
If the reader is interested in viewing the above Police Report # 01-02842 then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Report #01-02842 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
From the above incident it became clear to the Lahams that the only reason Kathryn Denise Morrell (Ms. Loud House) filed the above Police Report DR #01-2842 against the Lahams in which she made reference in it to Police Report Dr #00-7755 was to falsely accuse the Lahams of doing criminal activity so that she could blame the Lahams for the damage to their reputation that her gossip mongering was causing them.
The following is an excerpt from Police Report # 01-18508 Narrative entitled “Vandalism to a Vehicle” was the third false police report filed against Mr. Michael and Mrs. Elana Laham by yours truly, Sadegh Davari.
“On 9-30-01…I (Officer T. Clanin) was dispatched to…vandalism of a vehicle. He (Davari) stated that he parked his vehicle in his assigned slot at approximately 0130 on 9/21/01. He saw the (his) car again at approximately 2000 hours on 9-29-01. There was no damage to the vehicle at that time. At approximately 0850 (8:50 a.m.) on 9-30-01 Davari was notified, by his neighbor (B.J. Ashman) about damage to his vehicle. He…saw the paint peeling off the (his) vehicle…When, I looked at the car I could see a large area of paint peeling off of the trunk, tail light, and rear bumper of the vehicle…I then spoke with Ashman. She did not see anyone commit the act or around the vehicle. Davari believes the suspects are his upstairs neighbors, Mr. Michael and Mrs. Elana Laham. I attempted to contact the suspects by going to their residence and by telephone. Both methods were unsuccessful”.
If the reader is interested in viewing the above Police Report # 01-18508 then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Report # 01-18508 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Officer T. Clanin was unable to reach Mr. Michael and Mrs. Elana Laham for the following reason: Mr. and Mrs. Laham could not have committed the above said act of vandalism because according to the Marriott Hotel’s Guest Folio:
“Mr. Michael Laham and Mrs. Elana Laham checked into the Marriot Hotel in Long Beach California on 9/29/01 at 11:36 a.m. and checked out of the Marriot Hotel in Long Beach California on 10/1/01 at 11:01 a.m.” They went there to celebrate Mrs. Elana Laham’s belated birthday.
If the reader is interested in viewing the above Marriott Hotel’s Guest Folio then please go to hyperlink Marriott Hotel's Guest Folio at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
In short, the police just ASS U MED without any evidence and in spite of the couples’ protests that the Lahams were criminals because as the police said to the Lahams, “Everybody says so, so it must be true”. In other words, if you are not popular in your neighborhood because you are a victim of neighborhood bullying, this means that you, the victim, must be some sort of criminal. As time progressed the Police became more and more determined to catch the Lahams. Angry that they were not able to catch the couple committing any criminal act but thoroughly convinced that the Lahams were getting away with criminal activity the Police and the neighbors began to hold weekly “Neighborhood Watch” meetings and hired security guards try to and “Get those bad people”. The Police Department, were not doing their job because they refused to PRESUME that the Lahams were simply given a bad reputation based upon HEAR SAY by their trouble making neighbors.
A MALICIOUS VICIOUS ANNOYING PHONE CALL CASE
The following is an excerpt from Police Report # 01-19823 Narrative entitled “Annoying Phone Calls” was the fourth false police report filed against Mr. Michael and Mrs. Elana Laham by another neighbor who they did not know and who did not know them named Melinda Loretta Sidor:
“On 10/19/01 at 1725 hours…Melinda Sidor…reports receiving…annoying phone calls. RP told me (Officer C. Welch) that she began receiving a serious of annoying phone calls on…10/18/01 at approximately 1845 hours…when she answered the phone no one was there…Sidor said she received another call at 1945 hours…RP said that there was a…shrill voice yelling “You Fucking Bitch”. RP said that the caller then disconnected the call. Another hang up phone call was received at 2345 hours. At approximately 2400 hours, a male caller called and yelled “You Fucking Bitch” and disconnected the line. RP said that she did not recognize any of the voices (callers).”
Now the Police Report goes into an attached 16 full pages by Melinda Sidor of…further so-called information:
To make it more sensible we put it in excerpt form and chronological order.
“On Friday, 10/19-01, at approximately 1900 hours I (Officer C. Pointer) was dispatched to…for a supplemental report to an annoying phone call report. I met with Melinda Sidor, and the following is what she told me:”
“Sidor said she just came home…to have 4 more calls on her answering machine that were very annoying. Sidor let me listen to all 4 calls. The first call came from an unknown person was at 1232 hours. I listen to approximately 3-4 minutes of what sounded like someone munching potato chips. The second call came in at 1332 hours. This call also sounded of someone munching, crunchy chips with a few moans. This also lasted approximately 3 minutes. The third call, recorded at 1507 hours, was a series of burps from an unknown person. The fourth call was the sound of munching chips again at 1634 hours. “
“On 10/26/2001 at approximately 1600 hours Melinda Loretta Sidor came to the Front Desk of the Irvine Police Department to add a supplement statement to her already existing Police Report and submit a cassette tape containing MESSAGES FROM THE SUSPECT. I (Officer T. Knight)…booked it into Property Locker #5.”
According to the Police Report Melinda Sidor narrates this following section. “On 10-19-01 police came to my home because of phone messages on answering machine.” She fails to report anything about the phone messages on her answering machine that she claims were there. “After police left the phone calls continued.” The following portion of Police Report is some sort of log, which includes some of the phone calls she has already told us about. We put it in chronological order. Officer C Welch narrated this part of this following section of the police report.
“10-18-01 at 6:45 hang up. 10-18-01 at 7:45. This shrill voice yells ‘You Fucking Bitch’…hang up. 11:45 pm Hang up. 12:00 Midnight…male voice yells ‘You Fucking Bitch’. They hang up. (She said it was a male voice). 10-20, 1:20 am hang up. 10-20 7:38pm ‘Fucking Bitch Wore’ couldn’t make out some. 10-20 7:47 pm. Same as above. One of these messages I heard something about ‘You don’t know me’. 10-20 9:11 pm ‘Fucking Bitch, etc’ I just got to scared to keep listening.” “11-2-01 6:41 pm I was home. Male voice. Message clearly said my first and last name. Could make out rest of message. 11-3-01 6;22 am Left message. Male voice. Message clearly said my first and last name.”10-21-01 9:22 pm kept saying ‘Melinda Sidor’ 10-21-01 9:25 pm Kept saying ‘Melinda Sidor Fucking Bitch, etc.”
“On 11/24/2001 at approximately 1000 hours, Melinda Loretta Sidor came to the Front Desk of the Irvine Police Department to file a supplemental statement and submit a cassette tape as evidence… I (Officer T. Knight)…booked it into Irvine Police Property Locker#5.”
The following is a continuation of Melinda Sidor’s narrative taken by Reporting Officer C. Welch. It has nothing to do with any annoying phone calls. Rather, it is a collection of malicious vicious, lying trash-talk made up about the Lahams by their nameless, faceless unknown, gossip mongering neighbors:
“10-19-01…Handyman Alan said ‘The guy and his wife (Mr. Michael Laham and Mrs. Elana Laham) is crazy. (Just for the record the Lahams didn’t even know any Alan). Accused of pouring acid on neighbor’s car. Accused of making a “mud” slide. (For the record the so-called “mud” slide was a small pile of dirt that someone other than the Lahams had left on a neighbor’s porch). Betty Jane Ashman (BJ) She has received hate letters, she claims from him (referring to Mr. Michael Laham). BJ said he (Mr. Michael Laham) used to pound on her wall. She tried to confront one day but they (Mr. Michael and Mrs. Elana Laham) wouldn’t open door. (Just for the record the Lahams never even met BJ until Mrs. Elana Laham went out to get the mail one day. She had just reached the bottom of her stairwell when there was troublemaker BJ. For no reason at all BJ mumbled some nasty remarks to Mrs. Elana Laham. Mrs. Elana Laham got so incensed that she told BJ off. BJ got so scared of Mrs. Elana Laham that, even though she was walking her dog, she turned around and literally ran away. A couple of days later Mr. Michael and Mrs. Elana Laham were taking a walk when they saw BJ in the distance. As soon as BJ recognized that it was the Lahams she turned tail with her dog and ran away, again.) BJ says Jeff another neighbor (Just for the record the Lahams didn’t even know any Jeff but when Mrs. Laham asked Jeff why he bad mouthed her and her husband in Melinda Sidor’s police report, Jeff said, “You are nice people but all of the other neighbors here are mean”. “So you bad mouthed us in order to belong to the bad neighborhood club?” Mrs. Laham asked Jeff. He refused to answer. )…said they take medication for schizophrenia. BJ said neither of these people work. BJ said they…don’t like anyone living around them. BJ said one time they came upstairs and wrapped on her door; asked if they could come in. “Story from BJ (Betty Jane Ashman) daughter across the hall. She said ‘Don’t you remember the night #164 (The Laham’s) came up to my condo pounding on door 3:00 am saying let me in. I said no to them…BJ daughter said they then pounded on BJ’s door. She got so mad that she put a note on their door…to never pound on her door again. She signed Lady Resident. (Just for the record Mrs. Elana Laham got so mad when she received this note that she wrote a note back to BJ’s daughter and told her “Don’t you ever bother us again with your lies”. Mrs. Elana Laham never heard from the bully coward BJ’s daughter again, after that).
This part of narrative is from Melinda Sidor. “Since now know who suspect is. Saw his car, parked next to mine (Just for the record Mr. Michael Laham parking lot is no where near this Melinda Sidor’s parking lot). I am angry because I am sensing they will try to run me out…If a restraining order is possible I want one where this person (Mr. Michael Laham) can’t set foot on my stairwell and carport. He has been known to key cars; throw acid or paint on car. Since now know who suspect is. Saw his car, parked next to mine (For the record: Mr. Michael Lahams parking lot is no where near this Melinda Sidor’s parking lot) “This person is married and his wife is very much a part of it. Numerous neighbors have stories…to offer.
As it turns out Melinda Sidor and four other neighbors wrongfully stated that the Lahams a) are stalking her and b) are unemployed and c) key cars and d) throw acid on cars and e) do acts of vandalism and f) make excessive noise and g) are crazy/schizophrenic and take medication and h) force neighbors to move and i) send neighbors hate mail, and j) make harassing phone calls. The Lahams as you shall see have indisputable evidence that all of these claims are false, conjured up by sick mean stupid petty little people who have nothing better to do with their miserable lives but be ranting raving bully cowards.
The following is an Investigation Supplemental dated 12-13-01 and narrated by Officer Cristal Hayes.
“On 11-15-01 I receive a fax from Pacific Bell Traps and Traces Department identifying the originating phone number…with a corresponding subscriber name of Michael Laham residing at…which is the condo next to Sidor’s. I re-contacted Sidor to inform her of the phone trap results and to determine if she desired prosecution for the annoying phone calls. She said she did.
I am requesting that Annoying Phone Call charges be filed by the Harbor Court District Attorney against Michael Laham.”
If the reader is interested in viewing the above Police Report # 01-19823 then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Report #01-19823 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
During the month of December in the year of 2001 the Lahams, who did not even know that any annoying phone call case even existed, received a very unsettling correspondence in their mail. It read the following:
“Office of the District Attorney…December 27, 2001…Laham, Michael…Notice of Complaint Filed. A complaint was filed in the Harbor Justice Center charging that on or about 10-18-2001 you committed a violation of section(s) 653 (M) PC Harassing (they spelled it wrong) by Telephone. To enter a plea of guilty or not guilty of said charges, you are hereby notified to appear on 01-22-2002 at 08:30 AM, in court…If you fail to appear at said time and place, a warrant may be issued for your arrest. Signed Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney
On a second piece of correspondence that came with the first it read:
“Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Harbor Justice Center, Newport Beach Facility. The Orange County District Attorney charges that in Orange County, California, the law was violated as follows: Count: On or about October 18, 2001, Michael Laham, in violation of Section 653 (m) of the Penal Code (Make Harassing (It was spelled this way) Telephone Calls), an Misdemeanor, did willfully and unlawfully made a harassing telephone call to Melinda Sidor.
If the reader is interested in viewing the above Notification from the District Attorney’s Office then please go to hyperlink Notification District Attorney's Office at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
THE VIOLENT NEXTDOOR NEIGHBOR
While the Lahams were trying to emotionally recover from the fall out caused by the vicious malicious libel and slander from their hateful for no reason unknown neighbors, which resulted in the Lahams having to legally prepare to defend themselves in a court of law against a wrongful annoying phone call charge, their neighbor, across the way, tried to inflict assault and battery upon the Lahams and vandalized their property.
The following Police Report # Narrative entitled “Vandalism” was the first police report that Mr. Michael Laham and Mrs. Elana Laham filed against their next door neighbor whom they only knew as “Shawn”:
It occurred on 04/05/2002 at 1645 hours. Mrs. Laham narrated the entire police report.
“We have had a history of problems with our neighbor…named Shawn. Since he has moved in, (he moved in around December of 2001), he continues to mind my business. First, he tells anyone who knocks on my door that I never answer my door. I asked him politely not to tell people that I don’t ever answer my door. I thought the matter resolved until another incident occurred. Shawn told the Fed - X deliveryman to leave my package with him…We never authorized Fed – X to leave any package with our neighbor (Shawn). Please find enclosed copy of Fed – X delivery confirming package was not authorized, because it does not have any signature (on it), to leave with neighbor. I told Shawn ‘Thank you for taking my package but I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t’.
In the third incident on 4/5/02 at about 4:45 pm Shawn knocked on my door to tell me that a half hour ago my neighbor (below) had knocked on my door. About 4:50 pm I knocked on Shawn’s door to ask if the neighbor (below) had left any notes for Shawn to give me. (Neighbor is deaf so we communicate with notes)…He said ‘no’ and sounded rude and agitated. I asked him (Shawn) why at first he was nice to me and now he was sounding upset. Suddenly, he yelled ‘Fuck You!’ at me in a hostile and threatening tone. Startled and scared I closed and locked my door. Behind my door for at least 10 minutes he (Shawn) kept yelling over and over again ‘Fuck You!’ while he pounded with both hands and kicked with both feet my door. At one point he said ‘I am going to kick your ass.’ He also said ‘We are going to get you out of here’ and ‘You are in big trouble’. Also (he continued) ‘I’ve heard everything about you’. I don’t have a phone and my husband has our only car and he was still at work. When I no longer heard Shawn I ran downstairs to my deaf neighbor to call the police but he was not home. So I came back to my unit. I was too scared to go anywhere else to try and use the phone because I did not know where Shawn was. [We had no phone]. When I inspected the (my) door I found scuffmarks, indentations, broken pieces of wood, and chipped paint all along the bottom of the door. The door, not long ago was painted by the Association. Please find enclosed photos of door damage.
When Shawn…moved in I introduced myself, offered (him) a ‘Welcome to the neighborhood’ gift that he refused, offered to lend him quarters for the laundry if he ever needed any or any other favor he might need as neighbor… Please find enclosed thank you note from a new neighbor I gave a ‘Welcome to the neighborhood’ gift to. It is apparent to me that he knocked on my door on 4/5/02 at about 4:45 pm just to find any excuse to harass me…by the things he says such as “we are going to get you out of here’ and ‘I have heard everything about you’ are said because he has decided to be a part of a group of people who live her that we don’t even know by face, name, or address who target us for no reason except that they are apparently bored and miserable and so are looking for someone to hate.
This group started harassing us in 2000. This was two years after we moved in. We had no problems at all with any of our neighbors…before 2000. In April of 2000 I politely asked a neighbor if she could hold down the noise she made every morning at around 6:30 am because she would scream at her son. I was trying to sleep. Apparently she did not feel that I have the right to be a human being and make this request of her, so she started gossiping to her friends about me. This started a chain reaction that since continues to escalate in trouble for us. I now fear for not only my property but for my very physical safety. I only go outside when I have to because of people I don’t even know yell obscenities at me. I do not want to be forced to move because of the escalating hostility and prejudice against me for no reason. I just spent 3 years decorating my home with new carpets, home fixtures, and self-made one-of-a-kind artifacts. I am afraid to take a vacation now because I’m worried these troublemakers will rob and destroy my house. …my husband and I get blamed by these trouble makers for anything and everything that goes on in this neighborhood. Refer to crime reports. To some of these crime accusations we were out of town and can prove it.
Officer C. Welch states, “On 14-13-02, at 11:45 hours, victim Elana Laham came into the front desk to add the attached information to her existing report”:
Mrs. Elana Laham narrates, “On 4/11/02 at 1:30 pm I heard and saw through my peep hole my neighbor named Josh (Shawn’s step son) grab my front door handle and quickly turn it back and forth several times while he said ‘Fuck you bitch!’.
Also…my husband found a picture that had been taken of our car with a zero with a line in it sign. (ADD PHOTO OF CAR). We don’t know who put it there, but we think someone is trying to tell us that our car is going to be vandalized or stolen. Photo was found on the side window of the driver’s side taped to the window.
Officer Keenan states, “On 4/16/02 the Lahams came into the front desk to add an additional picture to their vandalism report. This picture was found on their vehicle’s windshield on approximately 4/11/02. The picture has a black ink marker made in a circle with a line through it. On the tape a dark substance was left behind. No one was seen leaving the picture”.
The black substance was clearly a black material that came from clothing such as a sweater that sheds. I saw neighbor Shawn wearing a black sweater made out of that same black material that was attached to the tape on the photo that was put on our new car. We no longer parked our car in our assigned parking slot. Instead we parked it along the street North of the Springs Condominiums. Apparently Shawn and/or others have been stalking us otherwise how could they possibly locate where our new car was parked? I told this to the police and requested that they run the photo for Shawn’s fingerprints but they refused, saying that it would be too difficult to find any fingerprints on the photo. Imagine that! A photo is one of the easiest places to collect fingerprints!!!
In addition, the Irvine Police refused to ever even talk to Shawn about the verbal threats he made to Mrs. Elana Laham and the damage that he did to their door because he was unable to do what he intended - assault and battery on Mrs. Elana Laham’s body. Moreover, no follow up investigation of any kind was made regarding the above Police Report filed against Shawn by Mrs. Elana Laham. When the Lahams asked for a copy of the above Police Report that they paid to have it came back to them exactly as it had originally left them with nothing but their own narration in it.
If the reader is interested in viewing the above Police Report #02-06198 including photos of door, copy of photo of car, Fed-Ex delivery receipt, and ‘Welcome to Neighborhood’ thank you card then please go to these three (3) hyperlinks at www.bullcrapbusters.com:
Not long after, Shawn continued his harassment of the Lahams by banging on their door, making loud burping noises, and shouting obscenities at the Lahams through it. Mr. and Mrs. Laham got sick and tired of Shawn terrorizing them. So one night, they took a walk to the nearby Vons Supermarket to use the pay phone there to call the police, once again to try and get them to make Shawn – the violent neighbor – stop terrorizing the Lahams. While they were walking through part of the Springs Condominium complex in order to get to the pay phone near Vons Supermarket, they noticed in utter horror that about twenty people, their so-called neighbors, whom they did not even know and had never met before, standing in front of their condo units, a lot of them on cell phones, just staring at the Lahams. Mrs. Laham felt as if she was in the dark ages being condemned to death by a bloodthirsty lynch mob watching and waiting with morbid anticipation for her innocent self to be led to the gallows and hung by a rope by a masked executioner.
The Lahams called the Irvine Police Department from the pay phone to report that their violent neighbor Shawn was harassing them. The dispatcher on the other end told the Lahams that police officers had already been dispatched to their home. Bewildered as to why that was so, since the Lahams had not called the police yet, the Lahams started walking back to their condo. However, as the entered the Springs Condominium parking lot, they saw two police officers were waiting for them there. They motioned the Lahams to come over to them, which the Lahams did. An Officer Russell and an Officer Hung told the Lahams that Shawn had called and made a complaint against the Lahams that the Lahams were banging on his door. The Lahams just looked at one another confused and incensed. Suddenly, the Laham’s heard sarcastic laughter from someone. When they turned to the source of the noise there was Shawn laughing. He was accompanied by a small group of people that the Lahams did not know. Mrs. Laham said to Officer Russell “Shawn called you because we are harassing him yet he is laughing?” Officer Russell said back to Mrs. Laham, “There is nothing wrong with laughing”. Officer Russell then told the Lahams that if there was any disturbance whatsoever coming from their condo they were going to get arrested. After that, Shawn started walking over to where the Lahams were. Half way to his destination Officer Hung barked at Shawn, “Get back over there!” That entire night, Mrs. Laham, determined not to get arrested for trumped up charges, stayed up and got no sleep so that she could keep her tape recorder on with a blank sixty-minute tape in it proving that the Lahams were not making any disturbance.
A few days later, another neighbor without provocation banged on the Laham’s front door and called the Lahams nasty names. When the Lahams looked through the peephole thinking it was Shawn again, they saw a face that they did not recognize. So the Lahams called the Irvine Police Department to report this incident of harassment. While they were waiting for the Irvine Police to arrive they suddenly heard a siren go on for about five minutes and then dead silence. The noise sounded like it came from the Springs Condominium parking lot. Shortly afterwards, there was a resounding knock at their front door. They opened it and there was Officer Russell accompanied by a female police officer. The Lahams vocalized their concern. But instead of writing up a police report or assuring the Lahams that something was going to be done to stop the harassment that the Lahams were being victimized with, Officer Russell invited him self into Mrs.Laham’s home. Mrs. Laham thought that was a weird thing to do. No police officer had ever done that before. Mrs. Laham was also upset that neither officer took the Lahams complaint seriously. Therefore, Mrs. Laham told him, “No”. After that, both officers left. Mr. and Mrs. Laham felt shaken that, not only weren’t the Irvine Police willing to help them, but that the Irvine Police asked permission to enter their home without any explanation as to why.
BACKGROUND DISCOVERY OF SEAN
SHAWN, THE LAHAM’S NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, WHOSE REAL NAME TURNED OUT TO BE SEAN ROBERT NORTON WAS NO LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN BUT RATHER A PREVIOUS EX-CONVICT.
On 4/5/02 the Lahams filed police report DR 02-06198 against the violent “next” door neighbor who tried to batter Mrs. Elana Laham, vandalize their property and continue to harass them…The Lahams repeatedly contacted the Irvine Police Department for assistance. An officer Peasley refused to (even) contact the violent next-door neighbor Shawn. Instead, Officers William Russell and Hung warned the Lahams that the Lahams would get arrested if they did not stop harassing the violent next-door neighbor Shawn.
The Lahams via letters dated 9/19/02, 9/27/02, and 10/18/02 requested a proper copy of DR 02-06198 - the police report in which they were the victims that they filed against their violent next-door neighbor Shawn. But all they received back from the Irvine Police Department was a stamped “Controlled Document” which contained only their own narrative. In addition, the Irvine Police Department refused to refund the Lahams the $15.00 processing fee that they paid to purchase a PROPER COPY of police report DR#02-06198. Never mind that the Lahams were entitled to a proper copy of the police report according to California Law - Government Code Section 6254 (f).
If the reader is interested in viewing the above letters dated 9/19/02 and 9/27/02 and 10/18/02 from the Lahams to the Irvine Police Department then please go to hyperlink Letters to the Irvine Police Department from the Lahams at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following is a letter dated 9/25/02 that a Lt. Sam Allevato sent to the Lahams:
“Per your request for a full report of DR #02-06198, I hereby advise you that you received all the information that is releasable to you as the victim of this crime when you purchased your two copies in April. All other documents related to this case are considered ‘investigatory’ and are exempt from disclosure per Government Code section 6254(f).”
If the reader is interested in viewing the above letter dated 9/25/02 from Lt. Sam Allevato then please go to hyperlink Letters from the Lahams at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Once again the Irvine Police Department was BREAKING THE LAW. According to the very law (Government Code Section 6254 (f) that Lt. Sam Allevato quoted in his above letter, the Lahams were entitled to a proper copy of police report DR#02-06198 which means that it would have within it information showing that a police officer had CONTACTED the suspect.
Government Code Section 6254 (f) states, “Records of complaints to…any state or local police agency…SHALL DISCLOSE THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN…THE INCIDENT…the date, time, and location of the incident…statements of the parties involved in the incident…and any person suffering property loss…as the result of the incident caused by…vandalism.” Government Code Section 6254(f) then goes on to state “However, nothing in this division shall require the disclosure of that portion of those investigative files that reflect the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.”
If the reader is interested in viewing Government Code Section 6254(f) then please go to hyperlink California Government Code Section 6254(f) at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
In addition, every police report that the Laham’s neighbors filed had the information in it that is required by Government Code Section 6254 (f) above. The Laham’s neighbors’ police reports for instance had the names and addresses of the persons involved in the incident, the date, time, and location of the incident, and statements taken of the parties involved in the incident. They even had in them the names and addresses of the people who were accused of doing the crime as well as investigative information about the crime. The Lahams know because they had copies of their neighbors’ police reports. So apparently the Lahams were being discriminated against by the Irvine Police Department. They were not being given the same legal rights as their neighbors were.
Furthermore, the Lahams, in their letter dated 9/19/02 to the Irvine Police Department, requested a “PROPER COPY” of the police report DR#02-06198 NOT a “FULL REPORT” of the police report DR#02-06198 as Lt. Sam Allevato had accused them of doing in his above letter.
Moreover, the Lahams only received ONE copy of the incomplete police report DR#02-06198 not TWO copies as Lt. Sam Allevato in his above letter claimed that they had. If the Lahams knew that the Irvine Police Department was going to single them out for unfair treatment with regard to their lawful entitlement of a proper copy of police report DR#02-06198 they would have gone to Kinko’s and spent less than $1.00 to copy their own police report narrative!!!
The Irvine Police Department’s unfair treatment of the Lahams was its attempt to hide the fact that no one from the Irvine Police Department ever contacted – let alone investigated – the suspect “Shawn” of the Lahams police report DR#02-06198. According to California Law Code Section 6254(f) they were supposed to. Apparently the Irvine Police Department did not want the Lahams to know “Shawn’s” true identity. And those are the reasons the Laham’s own police report came back to them with nothing but their own narrative in it.
If the reader is interested in viewing Government Code Section 6254(f) then please go to hyperlink California Government Code Section 625(f) at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Because the Irvine Police Department refused to give the Lahams a proper copy of DR #02-06198, they had to use other means to discover the identity of their violent next-door neighbor “Shawn”. The Lahams knew that their violent next-door neighbor Shawn drove a White Toyota Truck, License Plate # 5R56964. So they researched it.
On 9/24/03, the Lahams learned that the violent next-door neighbor’s full name is Sean Robert Norton and that he has A CRIMINAL RECORD! On 5/8/99, Officer Hutchcraft of the IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT arrested Sean Robert Norton for being under the influence of METHAMPHETAMINE (see Irvine Police Report DR 99-05576). On 9/30/99, Sean Robert Norton entered a plea of guilty (see the docket report for case# 99HMO3522 from the Orange County Superior Court Harbor Justice Center, Newport Beach, CA). Users of Methamphetamine are known to be VIOLENT.
If the reader is interested in viewing the above Court Briefs, Irvine Police Report DR 99-05576, and Docket Report Case #99HM03522 regarding Sean Robert Norton then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Report DR 99-05576 and Docket Report Case #99HM03522 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 5/8/99 the Irvine Police Department arrested Sean Robert Norton so they knew that he had a criminal record. Yet they refused to contact “Shawn” - Sean Robert Norton and thereby put the Laham’s, who were upstanding law abiding citizens without any criminal record, in eminent danger. Because the Irvine Police Department refused to do their job and since Lahams could not file a restraining order against their violent “next” door neighbor Sean Robert Norton, since they shared the same one and only stairwell to their front and only door, the Lahams out of duress moved on 4/16/03. They accumulated emergency moving costs of $2,392.64 per hotel and storage invoices.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Lahams’ hotel and moving storage invoices then please go to hyperlink Hotel and Moving Storage Costs at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following is a letter from Michael Berkow C.O.P. sent to the Lahams dated 4/22/02:
“Dear Mr. Michael and Mrs. Elana Laham: Thank you for your letter dated April 16, 2002 regarding what you perceive to be a refusal by Irvine police officers to investigate complaints made on your behalf. I can assure you that the Irvine Police Department is dedicated to providing unbiased enforcement of the law to all parties… Each complaint has been investigated on its own merits and we have contacted your neighbors when you have listed them as possibly involved in vandalism to your property…Sincerely, signed Michael Berkow, Chief of Police”
If the reader is interested in viewing the above letters dated 4/22/02 from Michael Berkow, Chief of the Irvine Police Department, to the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Letter from Michael Berkow, Chief of the Irvine Police Department to the Lahams at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
A MALICIOUS VICIOUS PROSECUTION
On 1/7/02 a court case was filed against Mr. Michael Laham by the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA HARBOR JUSTICE CENTER,NEWPORT BEACH FACILITY charging him with Count 1, 653(m) misdemeanor of annoying phone calls. On 1/22/02 at 8:30 am, in court, Mr. Michael Laham entered his plea of not guilty. He then hired attorney Fred Ascari to represent him. He met Fred Ascari at the same courthouse. After Mr. Michael Laham described his case to the attorney Fred Ascari, Ascari give Mr. Michael Laham his phone number of 949-260-8418 and told him that his case would be an open and shut one in his favor. But as soon as Mr. Michael Laham hired attorney Ascari things turned scary. Fred Ascari not only became abusive with his business relationship with Mr. Michael Laham by telling him not to ever contact him or he would declare a conflict of interest and withdraw from the case - refuse to be his attorney – but when Fred Ascari appeared in court to represent Mr. Michael Laham, he recommended that Mr. Michael Laham accept the following plea bargain which was more like a flea bargain for the prosecution:
Fred Ascari, his legal counsel, whom he had paid on 1/25/02 with check #1202 drawn upon California National Bank in the amount of $1,000 as a retainer fee for an open and shut annoying phone call case in the defendant’s favor, told Mr. Michael Laham, to accept a $100 fine and 3 year probation that included imprisonment if plaintiff Melinda Loretta Sidor ever complained that Mr. Michael Laham was harassing her in any way. As if any word out of her mouth woulda, shoulda, coulda ever even be a valid one!
After hearing Fred Ascari’s suggestion Mr. Michael Laham promptly fired him and even sued him in small claim’s court for the return of his money on the grounds that the attorney was not doing his duty to represent him. Mr. Michael Laham lost his lawsuit because he could not produce sufficient evidence to his claim. However, he did not regret taking Fred Ascari to court because Fred Ascari had acted in a biased manner against the Lahams. Suspicious that Fred Ascari was in league with the Orange County District Attorney’s Office to get Mr. Michael Laham convicted of making annoying phone calls, the Lahams looked for their next attorney outside of Orange County, California.
The Lahams found their attorney in Long Beach California. On 4/12/02 Mr. Michael Laham hired Mr. Mathew G. Kaestner to be his Attorney at Law, whom he paid on 4/12/02 with check #1360 drawn upon California National Bank in the amount of $5,000 as a retainer fee.
If the reader is interested in viewing the checks showing payment to both attorneys Fred Ascari and Mathew G. Kaestner, then please go to hyperlink Paid Checks to Fred C. Ascari and Mathewe G. Kaestner at www.bullcrapbusters.com
THE ANNOYING PHONE CALL TAPE
On 3/15/02 Mr. Michael Laham paid for and signed for the District Attorney Audio Cassette Tape of all of the annoying phone call messages that Melinda Loretta Sidor had recorded which at this time he presented to his new attorney Mathew G. Kaestner. With his attorney Kaestner present Mr. Michael Laham and Mrs. Elana Laham for the first time listened to the tape. But all the content of the annoying phone call taped messages consisted of was someone munching potato chips, a child playing with a toy, and inaudible mumbling from a voice that sounded neither like Mr. Michael Laham nor Mrs. Elana Laham. The closest thing to describe it would be to say that the mumbling sounded like a Walrus. The eyebrows of the Lahams went upward. They wondered if the Irvine Police Department or the District Attorney of Orange County had ever even listened to the so-called annoying phone call tape. It was all the proof they needed that the annoying phone call case that the Irvine Police Department and the District Attorney of Orange County had charged them with was BOGUS. There was no annoying content in the so-called annoying phone calls.
Besides the annoying phone call tape acting as incriminating evidence against itself, Michael Laham had substantial evidence proving his innocence against the misdemeanour of annoying phone calls that was charged against him.
According to Pacific Bell’s so called Traps and Tracer Document two annoying phone calls went out from the Laham’s home phone number of 714-53-2163 to so called victim Melinda Loretta Sidor on 11/2/01. The first one occurred at 16:12:33 (4:12 p.m.). The second one occurred at 18:41:11 (6:41 p.m.). But Mr. Michael Laham could not have made those calls for the following reasons:
If the reader is interested in viewing the above Pacific Bell Traps in Police Report # 01-19823 then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Report #01-19823 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
1) The Laham’s Sprint Long Distance phone bill revealed that Mr. Michael Laham was at his place of work during the times of said annoying phone calls that were made at his residence. According to Sprint he received a phone call at his work from his wife at their residence on 11/2/01 at 4:16 pm, which lasted 65 minutes and another one at 5:32 pm, which lasted 1 minute. It could be argued that Mr. Michael Laham was able to make the annoying phone call at 6:41 pm on 11/2/01 to Melinda Sidor. But it would be a very weak argument since for Mr. Michael Laham to be able to accomplish that feat he would have to rush out of his place of work at precisely 5:33 pm and get into his “Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang Flying” automobile so that he could commute from Long Beach – his work cite all the way to Irvine – his residence during rush hour traffic in the unheard of time of 1 hour and 8 minutes not to mention the time he would need to park his car and be able to dash through the door so that he could dial with his very own fingers Melinda Sidor’s phone number.
2) The following is an excerpt from a letter that Michael Laham sent to his attorney Mathew G. Kaestner:
“While doing some routine house cleaning at my office…last week, I came across a set of test results for a test I ran…on November 2, 2001…These tests took place from 7:01 pm when I started the program…to 8:33 pm, when I logged off. A copy of the test results is enclosed with this letter.
3) Michael Laham has a letter from his team leader and cube mate at his work verifying that on 11/2/01 he came to work before 2:00 pm and left after 6:00 pm.
If the reader is interested in viewing the above documents of the Sprint Long Distance phone bill, letters from Michael Laham’s team leader and cube mate, and Boeing work lab report then please go to hyperlink Sprint Long Distance Phone Bill, Boeing Letters, and Boeing Lab Report at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE DOCKET REPORT
On 7/1/02 the Lahams received a letter from their defense attorney Mathew G. Kaestner. Enclosed within it was the minute order from the Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange Docket Report. It read:
“6/28/02 Court Appearance. Case on calendar for Jury Trail. Judge Frances Munoz. Defendant not in court. Attorney Mathew Kaestner appearing. People represented by Erik Petersen, Deputy District Attorney. Upon motion by people. Count(s) 1 Dismissed.”
“I (Mathew G. Kaestner) appeared…on June 28, 2002 for purposes of obtaining a dismissal of your case…Your case has been dismissed”.
If the reader is interested in viewing the above documents of the Superior Court Docket Report Number IR02HM00216, and letter from criminal attorney Mathew G. Kaestner then please go to hyperlink Letter from Attorney Mathew G. Kaestner and Superior Court Docket at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Two years later, and thousands of dollars in “tax payers’” money spent by the Neighbors’ and by the Polices’ harassment of the Lahams goes by. But the Lahams never get caught breaking the law because they are not law-breakers. Nevertheless, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Laham having been so traumatized by the relentless bullying of both the Police Force and the Neighbors in what is considered one of the safest towns in the United States, the town of Irvine, in the state of California decided to sell their home and move away. “The End”…right? Alas, no, this was not the end of the Lahams undeserved ordeal.
LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST THE CITY OF IRVINE FOR MALICIOUS VICIOUS PROSECUTION
Because of the Irvine Police Department’s unwarranted biasness against the Lahams of maliciously and viciously attempting to prosecute Mr. Michael Laham for a groundless charge of making annoying phone calls that neither he nor his wife ever made costing them $6,000 in defense lawyer fees; and because of the Irvine Police Department’s refusal to uphold the law that they are sworn to protect the innocent with, and thereby did nothing at all about the Laham’s violent methamphetamine user next door neighbor, Sean Robert Norton, who had nothing better to do with his life but go out of his way to terrorize the Lahams for no reason, forcing the Lahams to have to move out of their home that they owned for 16 years accumulating emergency moving costs of over $2, 000 in hotel and storage invoices, the Lahams decided that it was time to fight back. The Lahams were so infuriated by the Irvine Police Department’s sick fixation on their one family in order to single them out for relentless bullying that they decided to file a lawsuit of Malicious Prosecution against the City of Irvine for their Irvine Police Department’s gross misconduct towards two upstanding law abiding professional upper middle class Americans. Furthermore, the Lahams found out that that this sort of malicious prosecution is actually ILLEGAL – and the Lahams could be entitled to compensation for their legal fees – per the following statutory laws in the State of California:
California Government Code Section 9149.22(c) states that malicious prosecution by any employee of a governmental agency.
California Civil Procedure Section 1021.7 allows a court to award attorney fees to a defendant if it finds that the case against that defendant was not filed or maintained in good faith.
And California Government Code Section 815(a) makes a public entity, such as a city, liable for acts by its employees, which would make the employee personally liable if he or she committed that act on his/her own, such as malicious persecution.
If the reader is interested in viewing copies of the above cited California statutory laws that make a city and its employees liable for malicious prosecution then please go to hyperlink California Statutory Laws on Malicious Prosecution at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing an overview of case law pertaining to malicious prosecution in the state of California, then please go to hyperlink Malicious Prosecution Overview of Law at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The annoying phone call case was brought without probable cause because the content of the annoying phone calls consisted of someone munching potato chips, a child playing with a toy, and inaudible mumbling. In other words, the so-called annoying phone call case had NO annoying phone calls in it!!!
The annoying phone call case was initiated with malice because the Irvine Police Department did not appropriately investigate the annoying phone call case. Per Investigator Cristal Hayes, Badge Number 5293, the Irvine Police Department refused to even contact the suspect. See Irvine Police Report DR # 01-19823. The Irvine Police Department presented as their evidence two phone traps on the Laham’s home phone that occurred when Mr. Michael Laham was at work. The Irvine Police Department refused to listen to the tape that contained the annoying phone calls to verify whether it even sounded like Mr. Michael Laham’s or even Mrs. Elana Laham’s voice for that matter. The Irvine Police Department presented as evidence a tape that contained so-called annoying phone calls in which the same so-called annoying phone calls were repeated multiple times – they had the exact same date and time stop – over and over again of someone munching potato chips, of a child playing with a toy, of inaudible mumbling that sounded like it came from a Walrus. Because the Irvine Police Department refused to contact the suspect, the Lahams only learned about the annoying phone call case when the District Attorney’s office via mail sent Mr. Michael Laham his letter of arraignment.
The annoying phone call case was pursued to a legal termination in Mr. Michael Laham’s favor. Although the Irvine Police Department insisted that the District Attorney’s Office prosecute this case, the case never even went to trial because of LACK OF EVIDENCE. See the Docket Report for Orange County Superior Court case IR02HM00216.
Apparently the motive behind the TRUMPED UP ANNOYING PHONE CALL CHARGES against the Lahams originated out of an ongoing bias that the Irvine Police Department had against the Laham family. The Lahams, to this day, cannot fathom why the Irinve Police Department is bigoted against them. The Irvine Police Department refused to do any thing to stop the gang up and gossipmongering bullying that was going on in the Laham’s neighborhood against the Lahams, which a Kathryn Denise Morrell had instigated. The Irvine Police Department embraced the bullying mentality that, “Everybody says so, so it must be so.” The Irvine Police Department did not do their job which was to honor the American legal motto of, “innocent unless and until proven guilty” by gathering evidence that either proved or disproved the claim that the Lahams were engaging in criminal activity.
The following ODDITIES happened to the Laham family regarding the annoying phone call charge brought against them by the Irvine Police Department:
The so-called annoying phone calls had NO ANNOYING PHONE CALL CONTENT in them – HOW WEIRD!!!
The so-called VICTIM of the annoying phone calls, Melinda Sidor, DID NOT EVEN KNOW the so- called PERPETRATOR of the annoying phone calls, Michael Laham and vice versa – HOW WEIRD!!!
The so-called SUSPECT of the annoying phone calls, Michael Laham, was at his WORK when a phone trap asserted that two annoying phone calls occurred at his HOME – HOW WEIRD!!!
The Irvine Police Department never contacted the Lahams regarding three police reports that non-credible neighbors filed against them. These are DR #00-23319 written by Officer Miller badge #5278, DR #01-02842 written by Officer Velarde badge #294, and DR #01-18508 written by Officer Clanin badge #296. Had the Irvine Police contacted the Lahams, they would have learned via airline tickets, travel expense reports, and hotel receipts that the Lahams could not have committed these crimes. Moreover, had the Irvine Police Department contacted the Lahams regarding the annoying phone call case police report DR #01-19823, that yet another non-credible neighbor filed against them, they would have learned via the annoying phone call tape itself, the Sprint long distance phone bill, Mr. Michael Laham’s work boss and a test report that the suspect Mr. Michael Laham could not have committed this so called crime.
The following is an excerpt of the letter dated 4/24/03 that the Lahams wrote to the City of Irvine:
“Dear City Manager Hart,
I write to contend that the Irvine Police Department committed malicious prosecution against me by charging me with a ridiculous annoying phone call accusation and therefore I demand reimbursement of the $5,000 (we were pursuing our law suit in small claim’s court which has a limit of $5,000 for damages) from the City of Irvine that I had to spend for attorney fees in my defense. If I do not receive a satisfactory response from the City of Irvine within two weeks from the date of this letter, I will pursue legal action against the City of Irvine for Malicious Prosecution.”
According to California Government Code Section 9149.22 (c), it is illegal for any employee of the city to perform malicious prosecution. According to California Civil Procedure Section 1021.7, malicious prosecution is a “PROSECUTION NOT DONE IN GOOD FAITH.” The legal definition for Malicious Prosecution is a case that “WAS BROUGHT WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, WAS INITIATED WITH MALICE, AND WAS PURSUED TO A LEGAL TERMINATION IN PLAINTIFF‘S FAVOR.” This legal definition is from the case of Crowley V. Katleman, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 386, 390 (1994), and Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 254 Cal.Rptr 336, 340 (1989). [The above cases establish what lawyers and judges call Stare Decisis, which is a Latin expression for the English Common Law concept that courts are obligated to stand by the decision of earlier cases, and rule the present case in a similar manner.]
1. Pursuant to the definition of malicious prosecution, the Irvine Police Department’s case against me was “brought without probably cause” because the Irvine Police Department had NO EVIDENCE against me. In police report DR 01-19823, I was wrongfully accused of making harassing phone calls, and the victim and other people wrongfully stated that:
a) I was stalking her
b) I am unemployed
c) I do acts of vandalism
d) I take medication
e) I am forcing neighbors to move
f) I sent her ‘hate’ mail
g) I made harassing phone calls to her
I have evidence to prove that the above claims are false.
On 12/13/02 investigator CRISTAL HAYES badge #5293 recommended that the District Attorney prosecute me for harassing phone calls WITHOUT EVER EVEN CONTACTING ME. Had she contacted me, she would have learned via indisputable evidence that the above claims against me were false and that I could not have made any annoying phone calls to the alleged victim.
2. Pursuant to the definition of malicious prosecution, this case…was “PURSUED TO A LEGAL TERMINATION IN THE PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR.” The District Attorney dismissed the charges on 6/28/02 without ever taking it to court. The evidence that was presented by the District Attorney for the above case was two phone traces and a tape recording of the harassing phone calls. I could not have made those calls at the time that they were documented by the phone traps because I was at work at that time and have evidence to prove it, and because the voice of the caller was not my own.
3. Pursuant to the definition of malicious prosecution, this case “WAS INITIATED WITH MALICE WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, RANGING ANYWHERE FROM OPEN HOSTILITY TO INDIFFERENCE. “We have the following evidence that the Irvine Police Department initiated the above harassing phone call case against me out of malice:
The ONLY EVIDENCE against my spouse in the above case was a tape recording of sounds of
a) someone munching potato chips
b) a child playing with a toy
c) inaudible messages from someone who was mumbling
How could items a) and b) be considered annoying phone calls when the content of the calls are not obscene, annoying, or harassing? How could item c) be considered an annoying phone call when I could not even make out what the caller was saying?
Had the Irvine Police Department LISTENED TO THE TAPE, they would have EASILY DISCERNED that the caller’s voice did not even sound like my voice.
The victim claims that she received repeated calls in which she was called a F***ing B***h Whore. According to the police report the F***ing B***h Whore calls were made AFTER the potato chip and child playing with a toy calls. So why didn’t the victim have this as EVIDENCE on TAPE?...”
If the reader is interested in viewing the letter dated 4/24/03 and 6/23/03 from the Lahams sent to the City of Irvine, then please go to hyperlink Letters to the City of Irvine at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 6/17/03, the Lahams claim that the Irvine Police Department did malicious prosecution against them was DENIED.
If the reader is interested in viewing the letter dated 6/17/03 and 6/19/03 from the City of Irvine to the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Letters from the City of Irvine at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following correspondences show how the Irvine Police Department continued to act in bad faith against the Lahams:
On 8/4/03, the Lahams sent to the City of Irvine and to the District Attorney a request for two SEALED copies of the annoying phone call tape. The Lahams wanted and needed each copy of the annoying phone call tape to be SEALED in its own envelope. The Lahams did this to be certain that the annoying phone call tape that the Lahams presented in court was the same as the annoying phone call tape that the Irvine Police Department presented as evidence in the annoying phone call case. Furthermore, it was to show that the Lahams did not tamper with the evidence, and that the Irvine Police Department did not tamper with the evidence, either.
If the reader is interested in viewing the letter dated 8/4/03 to the City of Irvine and the letter dated 8/4/03 to the District Attorney’s Office from to the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Letters to City of Irvine at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 8/14/03, a Lieutenant Susan Davis sent a fax to the Lahams that offered to give to the Lahams two copies of the annoying phone call tape. But Lt. Susan Davis did not specify whether or not the tapes would be SEALED in their own envelopes.
If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 8/14/03 from Lt. Susan Davis to the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Fax from Irvine Police Department for Sealed Copies of Annoying Phone Call Tape at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 8/18/03, the Lahams sent a fax to Lieutenant S. Davis particularly asking if each copy of the annoying phone call tape was going to be SEALED in its own envelope.
If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 8/18/03 from the Lahams to Lt. Susan Davis then please go to hyperlink Fax from the Lahams for Sealed Copies of Annoying Phone Call Tape at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 8/18/03, Lieutenant Susan Davis sent a fax to the Lahams stating that both copies of the annoying phone call tape would be in “one SEALED envelope.”
If the reader is interested in viewing the letter dated 8/18/03 from Lt. Susan Davis to the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Fax from Irvine Police Department for Sealed Copies of Annoying Phone Call Tape at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 8/20/03, the Lahams sent a letter to Lieutenant S. Davis asking why Lt. Susan Davis was not willing to give the two copies of the annoying phone call tape each SEALED in its own separate envelope to the Lahams.
If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 8/20/03 from the Lahams to Lt. Susan Davis then please go to hyperlink Fax from the Lahams for Sealed Copies of Annoying Phone Call Tape at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 8/20/03, Lieutenant Susan Davis sent a fax to the Lahams refusing to send anymore correspondences in WRITING thereby preventing the Lahams from documenting why Lt. Susan Davis was not willing to give the Lahams two copies of the annoying phone call tape each SEALED in its own separate envelope.
If the reader is interested in viewing the letter dated 8/20/03 from Lt. Susan Davis to the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Fax from Irvine Police Department for Sealed Copies of Annoying Phone Call Tape at www.bullcrapbusters.com
The Lahams received NO copies of annoying phone call tape from the Irvine Police Department, let alone two copies of annoying phone call tape each SEALED in its own envelope.
The District Attorney’s Office never replied to the Lahams request for two copies of annoying phone call tape each SEALED in its own envelope.
CASE DELAYS
On 6/26/03, the Lahams filed a lawsuit against the City of Irvine in the Small Claim’s Court Division of the Orange County Superior Court Newport Beach facility at 4601 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, California 92660-2595 – the same court house in which the annoying phone call criminal charge was made against Mr. Michael Laham. The Lahams’ law suit for Malicious Prosecution against the Irvine Police Department – City of Irvine was case # 03HS01988.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Plaintiff’s Claim and Order to Defendant dated 6/26/03, and the Proof of Service of Summons dated 7/2/03 then please go to hyperlink Plaintiff's Claim and Order to Defendant at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The original hearing was scheduled for 8/1/03 @ 1:30 pm. At that hearing the City of Irvine moved to have the case decided by a judge rather than a commissioner. No judge was available so the trail was postponed to 10/3/03 @ 1:30 pm. At the request of the two persons authorized to appear on behalf of the City of Irvine that trail date was also vacated and postponed to 10/31/03 @ 1:30 pm.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Authorization to Appear on Behalf of Party document dated 8/1/03 and the Faxes between the Lahams and the City of Irivne dated 8/18/03, 8/20/03, 8/25/03, 8/28/03 and Small Claims Request for Postponement Document dated 9/5/03 please go to hyperlink Documents to Appear on Behalf of Party
at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Register of Actions (Docket) for Case #03HS01988 then please go to hyperlink Register of Actions Docket at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
THE RECUSAL
At the hearing dated 10/31/03, the presiding Judge, Margaret R. Anderson RECUSED herself from the case along with the entire Harbor Justice Center Newport Beach facility also RECUSED themselves!!!* ( see their RECUSAL in the Superior Court of California County of Orange Harbor Justice Center – Newport Beach Facility Docket case # 03HS01988).
The word RECUSE means “To reject or challenge (a judge or juror) is disqualified to act, especially because of interest of bias.” (See Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, copyright 1977, page 1088)
The Harbor Court Justice Center Newport Beach and Judge Margaret R. Anderson RECUSED themselves in an attempt to make the Lahams drop their malicious prosecution case against the City of Irvine.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Register of Actions Docket for Case #03HS01988 then please go to hyperlink Register of Actions Docket at www.bullcrapbusters.com
However, the Lahams did not drop their lawsuit, so the case was transferred to the Orange County Central Justice Center located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California 92701 where it was assigned the new case # 03CS007196. The hearing was scheduled for 12/18/03 @ 8:30 am.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Clerk’s Notice of Transfer dated 11/5/03, the Register of Actions (Docket) for Case #03HS01988, and Plaintiff’s Claim and Order to Defendant for New Case #03CS007196 filed on 11/17/03 then please go to hyperlink Clerk's Notice of Transfer and Order for New Case at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 12/18/03, the City of Irvine had no objection to having the trial heard by a commissioner. Yet the City of Irvine objected to the original hearing on 8/1/03 @ 1:30 pm, which was going to be heard by a commissioner. How Weird! The City of Irvine’s weird behavior made it obvious that they were just looking for excuses to delay the trial so that the Lahams would just give up and drop their lawsuit. However, Mr. Michael Laham moved to have the case heard by a judge, which he was entitled to do per California Code of Procedure Section 116.240.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Motion to Disqualify Judge dated 12/18/03 then please go to hyperlink Motion to Disqualify Judge at www.bullcrapbusters.com
If the reader is interested in viewing a copy of California Code of Procedure Section 116.240 then please go to hyperlink California Code of Procedure Section 116.240 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
THE SO CALLED NEWSPAPER REPORTER
On 11/14/03, the Lahams wrote a letter to a reporter named Ray Hernandez of the Los Angeles Times Newspaper. Ray Hernandez had written an article about the Orange County Sheriff fixating on one family as the only suspect in a murder investigation. The Lahams wrote to Ray Hernandez in the hopes that he would be interested in their story regarding the Irvine Police Department fixating on them as the one and only criminal suspects in any and every so called crime that happened in the Springs Condominium’s community in Irvine California
If the reader is interested in viewing the e-mail dated 11/14/03 to the Los Angeles Times Newspaper from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink E-mail Chain Claire Luna at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 11/17/03, a Newspaper Reporter of the Los Angeles Times Newspaper named Claire Luna contacted the Lahams by e-mail and communicated to us that she was interested in our story.
If the reader is interested in viewing the e-mail dated 11/17/03 to the Los Angeles Times Newspaper from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink E-mail Chain Claire Luna at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 11/21/03, the Lahams sent an E-mail to Claire Luna notifying her about the time, place, and location of the trial regarding their lawsuit filed against the City of Irvine for Malicious Prosecution.
If the reader is interested in viewing the e-mail dated 11/21/03 to the Los Angeles Times Newspaper from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink E-mail Chain Claire Luna at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 11/25/03, a Newspaper Reporter of the Los Angeles Times Newspaper named Claire Luna contacted the Lahams by E-mail and expressed interest in the Laham’s lawsuit against the City of Irvine by discussing her plans to interview the judges who had recused themselves and by stating that, “I PLAN TO BE THERE FOR THE HEARING, BARRING SOME HORRIBLE MISHAP… (SMILEY FACE).”
If the reader is interested in viewing the e-mail dated 11/25/03 to the Lahams from Los Angeles Times Newspaper then please go to hyperlink E-mail Chain to Claire Luna at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 12/18/03, the day of the trial CLAIRE LUNA, THE NEWSPAPER REPORTER OF THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, NEVER CAME TO THE TRAIL.
On 1/7/04, the Lahams sent an E-mail to Claire Luna telling her the results of the trial along with the Lahams arguments proving that the City of Irvine’s prosecution of the Lahams for a bogus annoying phone call charge was malicious.
If the reader is interested in viewing the e-mail dated 1/7/04 to the Los Angeles Times Newspaper from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink E-mail Chain Claire Luna at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
CLAIRE LUNA, THE NEWSPAPER REPORTER OF THE LOS ANGELES TIMES NEWSPAPER, NEVER REPLIED TO THE LAHAM’S E-MAIL OR EVER CONTACTED THE LAHAMS AGAIN.
If the reader is interested in the letter dated 11/21/03 sent to the City of Irvine from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Letter to City of Irvine at www.bullcrapbusters.com
THE TRAIL
Michael Laham opened the Lahams’ legal case against the City of Irvine by pointing out that California Statutory Law – namely California Government Code Sections 9149.22(c) and 815.2(a) and California Civil Procedure Code 1021.7 – make a local government liable for the cost to a defendant of any malicious prosecution by its employees.
If the reader is interested in viewing copies of the above cited California statutory laws that make a city and its employees liable for malicious prosecution then please go to hyperlink California Statutory Laws of Malicious Prosecution at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
In order to win a malicious vicious prosecution legal case the Lahams had to prove four points per the criteria established in the two cases of Sheldon Appel Co v. Albert & Oliker [254 Cal.Rptr. 336, 47 Cal.3d 863 (1989)] and Crowley v. Katleman [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 386, 8 Cal.4th 666 (1994)]:
If the reader is interested in viewing the first California Appellate Court opinion – Sheldon Appel Company versus Albert & Oliker - that established the Stare Decisis that defines a case of malicious prosecution then please go to hyperlink Appellate Sheldon Appel Company versus Albert & Oliker at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing the second California Appellate Court opinion – Crowley versus Katleman – that established the Stare Decisis that defines a case of malicious prosecution then please go to hyperlink Appellate Crowley versus Katleman at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Point 1: “Prosecution was commenced at direction of Defendant.” This is proved by statement of Irvine Police Department Investigator Cristal Hayes in the Irvine Police Department’s police report DR 01-19823. In other words, the Irvine Police Department initiated prosecution against Michael Laham for annoying phone calls.
If the reader is interested in viewing the police report DR 01-19823 then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Report DR 01-19823 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Point 2: “Prosecution was pursued to legal termination in suspect’s favor.” This is proved by the District Attorneys unilateral dismissal of the charge of annoying phone calls against Michael Laham. See the docket report for case IR02HM00216. In other words, the annoying phone call charges brought against Michael Laham by the Irvine Police Departmen were dismissed by the District Attorney’s Office.
If the reader is interested in viewing the above documents of the Superior Court Docket Report Number IR02HM00216, and letter from criminal attorney Mathew G. Kaestner then please go to hyperlink Attorney Mathew G. Kaestner and Superior Court Docket at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
According to the Stare Decisis established in the California Appellate Case of Fuentes v. Berry [38 Cal.App.4th 1800, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 848 (1995)], the District Attorney’s unilateral dismissal of the charge of annoying phone calls against Michael Laham is considered a legal termination in Michael Laham’s favor.
If the reader is interested in viewing the California Appellate Court opinion – Fuentes versus Berry – that established the Stare Decisis that unilateral dismissal of a charge or case against somebody is considered legal termination in his or her favor then please go to hyperlink Appellate Fuentes versus Berry at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Point 3: “Prosecution was brought without probable cause.” This is proved by the Irvine Police Department’s police report DR 01-19823. In other words, the Irvine Police Department had No evidence that Michael Laham made ANY annoying phone calls.
According to the Stare Decisis established in the California Appellate Case of Puryear v. Golden Bear Insurance Company [66 Cal.App.4th 1188, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 507 (1988)], there is no probable cause without evidence as to WHO did the crime. All the two phone traps communicated was that two calls occurred from one phone number to another, not who made the calls. The Irvine Police Department refused to contact Michael Laham to discover if he did or did not make the annoying phone calls.
If the reader is interested in viewing the California Appellate Court opinion – Puryear versus Golden Bear – that established the Stare Decisis that there is no probable cause without evidence as to WHO did the crime then please go to hyperlink Appellate Puryear versus Golden Bear at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing the above documents of the Sprint Long Distance phone bill, letters from Mr. Michael Laham’s team leader and cube mate, and Boeing work lab report then please go to hyperlink Sprint Phone Bill, Boeing Letters, and Boeing Lab Report at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Point 4: “Prosecution was initiated with malice.” The legal precedent of the case of Baker v. Gawthorne [82 Cal.App.2d 496, 186 P. 2d981] establishes inference of MALICE from REFUSAL TO DO RESEARCH before filing a complaint. All the two phone traps communicated was that two calls accurred from one phone number to another, not what was said during the calls. According to the Irvine Police Report stated all the Irvine Police Officer heard was what sounded like someone munching potato chips. The Irvine Police refused to listen to the actual annoying phone call tape to discern whether or not there really was any annoying phone call content on it.
If the reader is interested in viewing the California Appellate Court opinion – Baker versus Gawthorne – that established the Stare Decisis that there refusal to do research infers malice then please go to hyperlink Appellate Baker versus Gawthorne at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
To further substantiate point 4, “initiated with malice” Michael Laham also addressed to Judge James H. Poole the very different treatment the Irvine Police Department gave to victim Melinda Loretta Sidor of the supposed annoying phone calls which only consisted of someone munching potato chips, a child playing with a toy, and inaudible mumbling that sounded like it came from a Walrus, (See District Attorney tape of evidence of annoying phone calls), versus the treatment the Irvine Police Department gave the Lahams, the victims of a violent methamphetamine using next door neighbor Sean Robert Norton who attempted to assault and batter Mrs. Elana Laham and who vandalized the Laham’s property. These two cases occurred concurrently, and yet: Per the victim’s request, the Irvine Police Department prosecuted Michael Laham (see Irvine Police Department report DR 01-19823). However, in spite of the Lahams repeated requests the Irvine Police Department refused to even go speak to the violent next-door neighbor Sean Robert Norton. The Lahams knew of this refusal because the Irvine Police Department refused to give the Lahams a proper copy of Irvine Police Department report DR 02-06198, which would include a statement from the suspect, thereby violating California Government Code 6254(f). In other words, the Irvine Police Department displayed “double standard” bias against the Laham family.
If the reader is interested in viewing the police report DR 01-19823 then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Report DR 01-19823 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing the police report DR 02-06198 then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Report DR 02-06198 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing a copy of California Government Code 6254(f), which defines a “proper copy” of a police report then please go to hyperlink California Government Code 6254(f) at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Mr. Michael Laham, the suspect of the annoying phone call case and, his wife, Elana Laham have NO criminal record but the violent neighbor Sean Robert Norton, the suspect of vandalism and attempted assault and battery, has a criminal record which the Irvine Police Department is fully aware of because they arrested Sean Robert Norton (see Irvine Police Report DR 99-05576) for being under the influence of methamphetamine (see Docket for case # 99HM03522).
If the reader is interested in viewing the above Court Briefs, Irvine Police Report DR 99-05576, and Docket Report Case #99HM03522 regarding Sean Robert Norton then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Report and Docket for Sean Robert Norton at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The Irvine Police Department had NO evidence against Michael Laham had made ANY annoying phone calls to Melinda Loretta Sidor. All they had were two phone traps on his home phone occurring while Michael Laham was 30 miles away at his place of work [see Sprint Long Distance phone bill, letters from team leader and cube mate, and lab report].
If the reader is interested in viewing the above documents of the Sprint Long Distance phone bill, letters from Mr. Michael Laham’s team leader and cube mate, and Boeing work lab report then please go to hyperlink Sprint Phone Bill, Boeing Letters and Boeing Lab Report at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
d) The Irvine Police Department had four postcards that were sent to Melinda Loretta Sidor that had no threats or obscene language content within them and without ANY evidence that they came from Michael Laham (see Irvine Police Department report DR 01-19823). But the Irvine Police Department had Elana Laham’s eyewitness statement that she was the victim of an attempted assault and battery by Sean Robert Norton, and the Lahams also had photos of their kicked in door and a photo threatening to vandalize or steal their car by suspect Sean Robert Norton (see Irvine Police Department report DR 02-06198), which the Irvine Police Department refused to dust for fingerprints at the Laham’s request.
If the reader is interested in viewing the police report DR 01-19823 then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Report DR 01-19823 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing the police report DR 02-06198 then please go to hyperlink Irvine Police Report DR 02-06198 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Melinda Loretta Sidor only had to change her phone number. However, the Lahams could not even file a restraining order against their violent “next” door neighbor Sean Robert Norton because both shared the only stairwell to our front and only doors. Thusly, since the Irvine Police Department refused to even contact Sean Robert Norton the Lahams out of duress had to move which cost them $2,392.64 in emergency moving costs (see hotel and storage invoices).
If the reader is interested in viewing the Lahams’ hotel and moving storage invoices then please go to hyperlink Hotel and Moving Storage Costs at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
According to the Stare Decisis established in the California Appellate Case of Baker v. Gawthorne [82 Cal.App.2d 496, 186 P.2d 981 (1947)], a blatant indifference to the facts of the case, evidenced by failure to investigate completely, justifies the inference of bad faith or malice.
If the reader is interested in viewing the California Appellate Court opinion – Baker versus Gawthorne – that established the Stare Decisis that a blatant indifference to the fact of the case justifies the inference of bad faith or malice then please go to hyperlink Appellate Baker Versus Gawthorne at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing the California Appellate Court opinion – Lucchesi versus Giannini – that established the Stare Decisis that a case does not have legal tenability just because the D.A. decided to prosecute, then please go to hyperlink Lucchesi versus Giannini at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Text of the Oral Argument that the Lahams used to present their case against the City of Irvine’s Malicious Vicious Prosecution then please go to hyperlink Text of Oral Argument for Court Presentation at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
THE VERDICT
The following was Judge James H. Poole verdict: “Plaintiff’s primary basis for malice was failure of Irvine Police to contact him for his side of the story. = Not Malice.”
If the reader is interested in viewing the judge’s handwritten verdict on Notice of Entry of Judgment dated 12/18/03 for Docket Case #03CS007196 then please go to hyperlink Notice of Entry of Judgment Minute Order at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Judge James H. Fool completely IGNORED the FACTS regarding the Laham’s legal case. In a FAIR COURT OF LAW Michael Laham would have won his legal case. But in the ruling in the legal case of Lahams versus the City of Irvine JUDGE JAMES H. FOOL, LIED that, “The Plaintiff’s primary basis for malice was failure of Irvine Police Department to contact him for his side of the story.” Judge James H. Fool claimed that the Lahams claimed that the basis of their lawsuit was failure of the Irvine Police Department to contact them. However, the Lahams lawsuit, as presented during the trail to Judge James H. Fool, was based upon the Irvine Police Department’s FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE the alleged annoying phone call case, which reflected in the Irvine Police Department having NO evidence whatsoever against Michael Laham and no annoying phone call case for that matter as there was NO evidence that any of the so-called annoying phone calls had any annoying phone call content in them, whatsoever. In addition, Judge James H. Fool refused to pay attention to the history of blatant BIAS that the Irvine Police Department had against the Laham family. For instance, there was an obvious DOUBLE STANDARD involved in the way that the Irvine Police Department handled the Melinda Loretta Sidor annoying phone call case against Michael Laham, and the way in which the Irvine Police Department handled the Laham’s assault and battery case against their next door neighbor Sean Robert Norton. Such proved point 4 that the Irvine Police Department “initiated with malice” their prosecution of Michael Laham.
Judge James H. Fool RULED against the LAW thereby setting the precedent for any police agency on a WHIM to make unsubstantiated charges against any innocent citizen, causing that citizen to have to spend thousands of dollars on attorney fees, or resulting in innocent citizens going to jail. In America one is supposed to be innocent unless or until proven guilty not guilty until or unless proven innocent.
Why did Judge James H. Poole render such a verdict? Due to the above observations, the one and only reasonable conclusion that the Lahams have is that Judge James H. Poole had taken a BRIBE. Who offered Judge James H. Poole the payoff? The one and only reasonable explanation that the Lahams have is the defendant – the City of Irvine.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF JUST 1% OF ALL VICTIMS SUED THE ENFORCER BULLY FOR VIOLATING THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS? THE ENFORCER BULLY WILL GO BANKRUPT. GOOD BYE & GOOD RIDDANCE TO POLICE VIOLENCE!
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF JUST 1% OF ALL VICTIMS PERFORMED THE ALAMO ON THE BRIBERY BULLY FOR VIOLATING THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS? THE BRIBERY BULLY WILL GO BANKRUPT. GOOD BYE & GOOD RIDDANCE TO JUDGES WHO TAKE BRIBES THAT RUIN PEOPLES’ LIVES!
Instead of crumbling to the floor in defeat, the Lahams did a victory dance. For the Lahams knew that due to Judge James H. Poole’s kickback the Lahams were going to get what is called, “poetic” justice. By filing their lawsuit of malicious vicious prosecution against the City of Irvine the Lahams ipso facto did “THE ALAMO”. [See the BullCrap Busters Website segment entitled, “Strategies for Fighting Back” under the section called “Winning the Battle But Losing the War” for further details about The Alamo].
The Lahams now knew that their lawsuit cost the City of Irvine a lot of money for the following reasons:
To begin with, the City of Irvine kept delaying the Laham’s malicious vicious prosecution case. The repeated changing of the date, time, and location of the trial resulted in the four people, who represented the defense for City of Irvine, having to show up in court on three separate occasions.
Our educated guess is that, the four persons from the City of Irvine, of which one of those persons was Cristal Hayes, investigator of the Irvine Police Department who had initiated the annoying phone call case, showed up for 3 hours on 8/1/03, for another 3 hours on 10/31/03, and for a full 8-hour day on the day of the trial, 12/18/03 since both they and the Lahams had to show up for the trail at 8:30 am even though the trail did not take place until 2:00 pm. This resulted in the four people who were to represent the City of Irvine costing the City of Irvine a total of 24 man hours – that’s 4 persons x 3 hours – for trail date 8/1/02 and also for trail date 10/31/03. In addition they had to show up for the trail itself, which happened on 12/18/03. This totaled 32 man-hours – that’s 4 persons x 8 hours. The grand total for all 3 “trail” dates was 56 man-hours – that’s 24 + 32 that these four people cost the City of Irvine just for appearing in court. Each one of those four persons, who are employed by the City of Irvine, gets paid about $30 an hour - $30 per hour x 56 hours spend in court = $1,680 that the City of Irvine had to pay them just to APPEAR in court.
Note this cost does NOT include the hours these four or any other personnel who work for the City of Irvine, spent in preparing for the malicious vicious prosecution case. We do not know what the above cost the City of Irvine but we are going to make the following guesstimate for the purpose of making a point:
Just to read Michael Laham’s seven paged letter of complaint to the City of Irvine regarding malicious prosecution by the Irvine Police Department probably took two employees who work for City of Irvine 2 hours. To write up their two letters in response to Mr. Michael Laham probably took the two employees another two hours. That’s 2 clerks and 2 hours at $30 per hour- that’s 4 x 30 = $120 plus 2 clerks and 2 more hours, that’s 4 x $30 = $120. That’s a total of $240 just to process the Laham’s grievance. For the City of Irvine to plan their defense – decide who would represent them and prepare those people for the malicious prosecution court case for each of the three set trail dates of 8/1/03, 10/31/03, and 12/18/03. That’s 2 employees and 8 hours at $30 per hour – that’s 16 x 30 = $480.
We can only speculate what it cost the City of Irvine to bribe the justice system, but speculate we will in order to make a point that it is well worth it to fight back against the bully. So here we go:
To bribe Judge James H. Pool to unjustly rule in favor of the defendant, after all, he was willing to try the case in an unjust manner and therefore risk his reputation as an honorable Judge, probably cost the City of Irvine one half of what it cost them if they just paid the Lahams their $5,000 claim in damages. That’s another $2.500.
Even though the Lahams sued the City of Irvine for the maximum allowed in small claim’s court of $5,000. It actually cost the Lahams a total in damages for police misconduct of $1,000 in retainer fess to the defense lawyer Fred Ascari, $5,000 in retainer fees to the defense attorney Mathew Kaestner, $2,400 (round off) in emergency moving costs for hotel and storage, and another $1200 in hiked up automobile insurance premiums which you can read about below in the next section of this article. The Laham’s grand total of damages due to police misconduct and brutality = $9,600.
To stop justice from happening to the Lahams cost the City of Irvine about ($1680 + $240 + $480 + 2500 + $2500) which equals the grand total of $7,400 and that is a conservative estimate as it did not include fees to their own lawyers in preparation for the law suit against them. The Lahams could not be sure if the City of Irvine hired any of their own lawyers since Judge James H. Pool acted like a defense attorney for the City of Irvine instead of a presiding Judge over the malicious prosecution small claim’s court case. So, the Lahams assumed that the City of Irvine used him as their defense attorney.
The Lahams had performed the ALAMO. Although the Lahams lost a difference of $2,200 from out of their pocket, the City of Irvine lost $7,400 of money that they might have used elsewhere. The Lahams were going down so they brought their enemy down with them. HAD THE LAHAMS CHOSEN NOT TO FIGHT BACK THE LAHAMS WOULD HAVE LOST A TOTAL OF $9,600.00 AND THE CITY OF IRVINE WOULD HAVE LOST $0.00.
No one can rationalize that “such things only happen to bad people” or that “such things only happen to a few people”. However, such rationalizations are precisely why the American Justice System is bribeable. The Lahams always had the utmost respect for the police because they believed that the police risk their lives daily to protect the innocent. Alas, here came the hard school of knocks called life experience to make them realize that some police risk the lives of innocent people every day so that they can protect their twisted badge. We the people must unite, organize, and collectively put a stop to the face of injustice of the enforcer bully police officer for if we don’t our children will no longer know what the words “freedom, liberty, and justice for all” mean.
THE LAHAMS ATTEMPT TO GET JUSTICE
THROUGH THE MEDIA
The Lahams should have been able to get justice through Newspaper Reporters, Cop Websites, Judge Websites, Government Officials, and/or Television Stations regarding the Irvine Police Department’s VIOLENCE against them. However, NO ONE in the media was willing to do ANY THING to help the Lahams.
If the reader is interested in viewing the entries the Lahams made regarding police misconduct and brutality to the media then please go to the following hyperlinks at www.bullcrapbusters.com:
THE ACCIDENT
Michael Laham had an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) invested in a Certificate of Deposit (CD) at Bank of America, which he decided to close. Michael Laham’s IRA CD account at Bank of America was worth $175,000.00. It had matured and entered its seven-day grace period, which was from 3/20/05 to 3/26/05. During the grace period, Michael Laham was permitted to withdraw his IRA money. But Michael had been on a business trip from 3/21/05 to 3/24/05. So, it was not until the last day of the grace period, which was 3/26/05, that Michael Laham and Elana Laham come into Bank of America’s El Toro Branch in Orange County, California, to close out his IRA CD account. However, the El Toro Branch of Bank of America was extremely arrogant, unbelievably rude, and grossly unprofessional towards the Lahams. They refused to let Michael Laham withdraw his IRA money from Bank of America. They claimed it was because it was against Bank of America’s bank policy. The Lahams had come on the final day of the IRA CD account’s grace period, which was a Saturday. So, the Lahams requested to see Bank of America’s rule booklet regarding this policy. But all it stated about “Grace Period Transactions” was that “A grace period of seven calendar days begins on the maturity date.” and “If a grace period ends on a weekend or bank holiday, a deposit, withdrawal, or term change MAY BE made through the last business day before the grace period ends.” Bank of America declared that the “last business day” meant Friday. The Lahams disagreed because Bank of America was open Saturday. Therefore, the Lahams reasoned that the “last business day” meant Saturday. So the Lahams ought to be able to close out Michael Laham’s IRA CD account since Saturday was the last day of the grace period. But Bank of America insisted that the Lahams wait until 9/19/04, when the next IRA CD grace period commenced, in order to close out their IRA CD account with Bank of America, which they did and put it into Bank of the West.
Elana Laham had already closed out her Passbook Savings account in the amount of $100,000 at the Bank of America’s Lake Forest Branch. Adding to the closure was Michael Laham’s IRA CD, six months later, when it again went into its grace period. At which time the Lahams closed it out of Bank of America and transferred it to Bank of the West. If the Laham’s money of $275,000 had remained in Bank of America, it woulda, shoulda, coulda have yielded the approximate spread* of 5% interest. [READER’S NOTE: * A SPREAD IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT BANKS CHARGE WHEN BANKS LOAN OUT MONEY AND WHAT BANK PAY AS INTEREST TO DEPOSITORS.] Instead, Bank of America was going to lose in annual revenue about $13,750.00, indefinitely. So, the Lahams felt vindicated that Bank of America was going to pay the price for losing them as its depositors.
If the reader is interested in viewing the documentation for Michael Laham’s business trip from 3/21/05 to 3/24/05, Bank of America’s IRA Withdrawing/Closing Account request form dated 9/19/05 along with Bank of America’s Cashier’s Check, Bank of America’s closing statement for IRA account, and Bank of the West’s Certificate of Deposit document dated 9/21/05 then please go to hyperlink Boeing Trip Bank America IRA at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The Lahams vocalized their legitimate complaint that Bank of America was being unreasonable. Bank of America showed the Lahams just how unreasonable they were by telling the Lahams that they were going to call the local police, the Orange County Sheriff Department on the Lahams. The Lahams, shocked and incensed, exited Bank of America’s establishment, immediately. While the Lahams were on their way to their car in the Bank of America El Toro Branch’s parking lot a Mexican adult male with black hair and a cleanshaven face, short in stature, wearing civilian clothes started shouting obscenities at the Lahams for no reason. How WEIRD! Elana Laham told him to “Shut up!” and “Leave us alone.” He continued yelling and cursing at the Lahams. Elana Laham persisted in telling him to “Shut up!” and “Leave us alone.” Then, about five minutes later, for no apparent reason he finally stopped harassing the Lahams. After that, the Lahams got into their car and left. While the Lahams were on their way home, exiting the intersection of Lake Forest and Pittsford on a green light going forty miles an hour in a forty-five mile an hour speed limit zone, the left passenger side of the Laham’s car was hit.
The following are excerpts from the fax we sent dated 3/31/05 to Pam Wilson, Claim’s Office, State Farm Insurance Company and to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department from the Lahams regarding what we witnessed in the car accident that we were involved in:
“Dear Ms. Wilson,
“Sometime between 12 noon and 2 pm on Saturday, 3/26/05, we were traveling west bound on Lake Forest Drive. We went through the intersection of Lake Forest and Pittsford our traffic light was green. We were almost completely through the intersection when (BAM) our car was hit. We stopped, got out of our car, and looked around the entire area to see who hit us, but we saw nothing. So, we thought it was a hit and run accident. Having no cell phone and not wanting to leave the scene of the accident to contact the police, we waited, hoping that whoever hit us would show up.
The Witnesses WEIRD Behavior
Approximately TEN MINUTES LATER AFTER THE CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED, a white truck, CA License Plate # 4V06418, came to a halt in front of our vehicle. While we were looking at the damage to our car, Elana Laham said to Michael Laham that she thought we blew a tire. At that moment a white slender tall male who had come out of the [white] truck walked over to Elana Laham and in a sassy, arrogant, angry voice yelled, ‘Oh come on…Don’t give me that…You know you hit the other car…You know you are guilty!’ With a shocked look on her face, Elana Laham said, ‘I’m the passenger not the driver. Who are you?’ The witness then pointed his finger in Michael Laham’s face and yelled, ‘The minute I saw your face I knew you were guilty.’ Michael Laham wondered, What does my face have to do with anything? By that time, a white, tall, slender female accompanied the so-called witness. Elana Laham asked them, ‘Are you the driver that hit us?’ They both yelled, ‘We’re the witnesses!!’ Then, the male so called witness yelled at us, ‘You ran a red light. Admit it. You’re guilty.’ After that, the female so called witness yelled at us, ‘You injured the female of the other car so badly that you almost killed her!!!’
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report’s section about Witnesses page three then please go to hyperlink Traffic Collision Report Page Three at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
When Elana Laham pointed out to the so called witnesses how the supposedly horribly injured passenger jumped out of her car and went running down the street, the so called female witness yelled, ‘I said you could have killed her.’ Michael Laham pointed out to the male witness that the wounds on our car show that the other car hit our car, not the other way around, as the so -called witness claimed. The so-called witness just glared at Michael Laham with clenched fists, and for the first time ever, he had nothing to shout at Michael Laham.
From the moment the two so called witness came out of their truck, until the [Orange Country Sheriff] police finally arrived (which seemed to be about 30 minutes after the accident occurred), without relenting they (the so called witnesses) kept screaming at us that we were guilty, they kept yelling obscenities at us, and they kept shouting at us to “shut up”. At no time did these so called witnesses ever introduce themselves to us, inform us that they had notified the police that an accident occurred, or ask us if we were hurt LIKE NORMAL WITNESSES DO. We repeatedly requested that they leave us alone. But they continued without restraint to harass us for no reason. Due to these events we became very suspicious that these were NOT REAL WITNESSES. If they were real witnesses then they woulda, shoulda, coulda NOT have done the following:
1) Why did they verbally attack us especially IF we were not even in an accident with them?
2) Why did they show up on the scene a considerable amount of time after it happened?
3) Why did they hang around us?”
[READER’S NOTE: NOTICE HOW THE SO CALLED WITNESSES BELATEDLY ARRIVED AT THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT, NEVER ASKED US FOR INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE ACCIDENT, AND BADGERED US.]
If the reader is interested in viewing Fax dated 3/31/05 sent to Pam Wilson, Claim’s Office, State Farm Insurance Company, from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Fax Pam Wilson at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 5/26/05, two months after the car accident occurred, we were permitted to have a copy of the Traffic Collision Report from Yvette Gomez.
The so-called witness, Kelly Miller and Vickie Miller, stated that OUR VEHICLE HIT THE OTHER DRIVER’S VEHICLE. However, the so-called other driver, Katrina Ayumi Kuraishi stated that HER VEHICLE HIT OUR VEHICLE.
OFFICER T. SPAULDING Badge #2761 wrote the following narrative in the Traffic Collision Report: “Kelly told me the following: “Kelly…then saw V-1 (Saturn – our car) traveling w/b [west bound] on Lake Forest Drive in the #2 lane…V-1…COLLIDED INTO V-2 (Honda – other driver’s car) ”.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report’s Narrative Supplemental page five then please go to hyperlink Traffic Collision Report Page Five at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
OFFICER J. R GALVEZ Badge #5361 wrote the following narrative in the Traffic Collision Report: D-2 KURAISHI…stated…SHE IMPACTED (broadside) the rear portion of the Saturn.”
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report’s Narrative Supplemental page four then please go to hyperlink Traffic Collision Report Page 4 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
ACCORDING TO THE TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT’S SKETCH THE OTHER CAR HIT OUR CAR.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report’s sketch of the automobile accident page two then please go to hyperlink Traffic Collision Report Page 2 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The so-called witness, Kelly Miller and Vickie Miller, stated that THEY SAW THE OTHER DRIVER’S GREEN ARROW.
OFFICER T. SPAULDING Badge #2761 wrote the following narrative in the Traffic Collision Report: “Kelly told me the following: He was STOPPED (w/b) WESTBOUND on Lake Forest Drive in the #1 lane at a red traffic light. Kelly saw V-2 (Honda – other driver’s car) making a left hand turn from (e/b) [EASTBOUND] Lake Forest Drive onto (n/b) [northbound] Pittsford on a GREEN LEFT TURN ARROW.”
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report’s Narrative Supplemental page five then please go to hyperlink Traffic Collision Report Page 5 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
THE SKETCH IN THE TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT ILLUSTRATES THAT A VEHICLE HEADED WESTBOUND CANNOT SEE TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHTS THAT ARE POSITIONED FOR VEHICLES TRAVELING EASTBOUND.
If the so-called witnesses were headed WESTBOUND, as they say they were, and the so-called other driver was facing EASTBOUND, as they say they were, the only thing the so-called witnesses were able to see of the so-called other driver’s GREEN ARROW traffic light was its BACK. Unless of course, the so called witnesses are Superman and therefore possesses X-Ray vision and the other driver’s green arrow traffic light box is not made out of lead.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report’s Sketch page two then please go to hyperlink Traffic Collision Report Page 2 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The Other Driver’s WEIRD Behavior and WEIRD Car
The following are excerpts from the fax we sent dated 3/31/05 to Pam Wilson, Claim’s Office, State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams regarding what we witnessed in the car accident that we were involved in:
“But at no time did any ambulances come to the scene of the accident. When the car (Honda CA License Plate Number 2YAD185) that supposedly hit us finally showed up, a few minutes before the police arrived, the woman who was supposedly badly injured sat motionless in the passenger side of the car for a little while, but then she ran down the street (Lake Forest Drive), around the corner, and reappeared a moment later, walking briskly with two young Asian looking men by her side. This woman also looked Asian and young…the car that supposedly hit us appeared to not have any damage except for a small tear in the black covering on the front of their (its) bumper. Neither I, nor my wife, who are both middle-aged people, were at all hurt, and the air bags in our car did not inflate…
About five minutes before the Police arrived, the driver of the other vehicle (Honda CA License Plate #2YAD185) that supposedly was in a car accident with us parked their car by a bus stop on the southwest corner of Lake Forest Drive and Pittsford. The other party (the so called other driver) refused to talk to us or let us talk to them to exchange information about the accident. Therefore, we do not have their names, addresses, phone numbers, or insurance carrier or policy number. All we had is their car’s license number – CA 2YAD185.
Both the driver and passenger appeared to be young Asian females. They were both mobile and able bodied. Their car was operational. The only damage we saw on their car was a small tear on the black coating that cover’s the front bumper on the driver’s side. Other than that, the entire car looked like it needed a paint job. It looked shabby.
In our opinion the above car was not the vehicle that was involved in an accident with us.
Our (car’s damages) wounds show a streak of (white) broken paint – a horizontal mark about 25 inches above the ground – across our (car’s) left quarter-panel.”
[NOTE TO THE READER: THE SO CALLED OTHER DRIVER’S CAR WAS BLUE YET THERE WAS ONLY WHITE PAINT ON THE WOUNDS OF OUR CAR].
If the reader is interested in viewing Fax dated 3/31/05 sent to Pam Wilson, Claim’s Office, State Farm Insurance Company, from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Fax Pam Wilson at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The WEIRD Video Camera Incident
The following are excerpts from the Letter – Subject Supplement to Accident Report –dated 4/10/05 sent by the Lahams to Pam Wilson, Claim’s Office, State Farm Insurance Company:
“…we noticed that, mounted on top of the overhead signal lights for the intersection of Lake Forest Drive and Pittsford are what appear to be, in our opinion, video cameras that look like they have a view of the intersection of Lake Forest and Pittsford. We point this out to you with the hope that:
(a) You will investigate if there are…video cameras that have a view of the intersection of Lake Forest Drive and Pittsford…
(c) You will…study that video to determine what…happened at this accident from the video tape.
If a taping of this accident exists, it will…help in determining who hit whom and how…the collision occurred.”
If the reader is interested in viewing letter dated 4/10/05 sent to Pam Wilson, Claim’s Office, State Farm Insurance Company, from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Fax Pam Wilson at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following are excerpts from the Letter dated 4/19/05 sent to the Lahams by Wendy Kaiser, Claim’s Office, State Farm Insurance Company:
“…the small-camera like machines on the light poles at the intersection are not video cameras.
We are not aware of any cameras at this intersection and as such will not be securing any videotape.”
If the reader is interested in viewing letter dated 4/19/05 sent to the Lahams, from Wendy Kaiser for Pam Wilson, Claim’s Office, State Farm Insurance Company then please go to hyperlink Letter Wendy Kaiser at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
A couple of weeks later we went to the intersections of Pittsford Avenue and Lake Forest Drive to examine what seemed to be a video camera facing eastbound. While we were at the intersection, we saw a construction crew removing what appeared to be that video camera. While we were watching the event, a police officer in a black and white patrol car, that said “Orange County Sheriff” on the side of it, drove by us, stuck his face through the window, and said, “Are you guys alright?” HOW WEIRD!
The WEIRD Taped Interview
The following are excerpts from the Fax dated 6/8/05 sent to Yvette Gomez, Special Investigative Auto Unit , State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams:
“I received your messages on my answering machine. We do not understand your statement that, ‘we may have some discrepancies regarding how this accident happened.’
“…we highly suggest that you focus on the wounds of the accident! THE WOUNDS DO NOT LIE.”
If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 6/8/05 sent to Yvette Gomez, Special Investigative Auto Unit, State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Fax Yvette Gomez at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following are excerpts from the Letter dated 6/8/05 sent to the Lahams from Yvette Gomez, Special Investigative Auto Unit , State Farm Insurance Company:
“As stated in my last two phone messages, there is a question of liability regarding this accident. In order to resolve this issue we are requesting that you provide us with your recorded statements.”
If the reader is interested in viewing the letter dated 6/8/05 sent to the Lahams from Yvette Gomez, Special Investigative Auto Unit, State Farm Insurance Company then please go to hyperlink Letter Yvette Gomez at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following are excerpts from the Letter dated 6/13/05 sent to Yvette Gomez, Special Investigative Auto Unit, State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams:
“…where…in my policy does it state that I am required to conduct an investigative interview with you in a live conversation over the phone or in person? My automobile insurance policy number is L34 7741-C12-75H.”
If the reader is interested in viewing letter dated 6/13/05 sent to Yvette Gomez, Special Investigative Auto Unit, State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Letter Yvette Gomez at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following are excerpts from the Letter dated 6/20/05 sent to the Lahams from Yvette Gomez, Special Investigative Auto Unit , State Farm Insurance Company:
1. “Yes, you and Elana can record the investigation interview with your own tape.
2. Transcribed copies of yours and Elana’s statements will be available.
3. I’ve enclosed a copy of the section of the State Farm Car Policy 9805A, which explains Reporting A Claim-Insured’s Duties for your review.”
Enclosed in above letter was an excerpt from our Policy Statement. On page five under item #5 entitled “Insured’s Duty to Cooperate with Us” under sub-item “a” it states, “The insured shall cooperate with and, when asked, assist us in: (1) ATTENDING AND GETTING WITNESSES TO ATTEND, HEARINGS, AND TRIALS.”
WHY DID YVETTE GOMEZ HAVE TO QUESTION US ABOUT A MINOR ACCIDENT IN WHICH NO ONE WAS SUING ANYBODY???!!!
If the reader is interested in viewing letter dated 6/20/05 sent to the Lahams from Yvette Gomez, Special Investigative Auto Unit, State Farm Insurance Company then please go to hyperlink Letter Yvette Gomez at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following are excerpts from the Letter dated 6/20/05 sent to Edward B. Rust, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams:
“…we are currently having a problem with Ms. Yvette Gomez…She states, ‘Your policy does state that you are required to cooperate with us when asked and assist us in your investigation and that includes statements whether they be recorded or in person.’ Also she states, ‘I need to ask you questions in a live conversation.’
However, when we checked our State Farm Car Policy, all it said was that, ‘The insured shall assist us…in securing and giving evidence…’ and ‘answer questions under oath when asked…’ See page five of California Policy Form 9805A – Sections 5a(2) and 3e…OUR STATE FARM POLICY DOES NOT SAY THAT ANSWERING QUESTIONS HAS TO OCCUR IN ANY SPECIFIC MANNER, I.E. IN PERSON, OVER THE PHONE, OR IN WRITING.” As we stated…we wanted to answer her questions in writing so that we could have documentation. But Ms. Gomez insisted we could not answer her questions in writing. She also implied that, by wanting to do that, we were not cooperating.”
We want to point out that we could give written statements with our signatures and notarized with a jurat, so State Farm could get from us statements made under oath…”
The following are excerpts from the Letter dated 6/27/05 sent to Edward B. Rust, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams:
“On Friday, 24, 2005, we had a TAPED INTERVIEW with Yvette Gomez of State Farm’s Special Investigative Auto Unit Agent. Yvette Gomez is supposed to be evaluating our automobile accident.
Throughout our entire interview, Yvette Gomez appeared to be completely biased against us, the customers of State Farm. She spent most of the interview insisting that what the other party said was fact and either ignored, evaded, or refused to believe what we had to say.
We are also uncomfortable that she made references to the police who did not witness the accident. We are paying State Farm, not the Police Department, for car insurance so we would expect that State Farm would be conducting our…investigation and deciding its outcome…not the police.
The following are some examples from our live interview with Yvette Gomez that gives us the strong impression that Yvette Gomez…is acting in an unethical manner.
We understand per our State Farm policy that we must cooperate with State Farm in obtaining evidence and statements from us regarding the car accident…However…what do these following questions have to do with the car accident in which we are involved?
1. What is your job position at Boeing?
2. Who is your immediate supervisor?
3. Who do you report to?
4. Why don’t you live in any one place more than one year?
5. Do you take medication?
Why are disturbed by the way Yvette Gomez handled the issue of the wounds on our car. In the interview, Elana Laham states, ‘THE WOUNDS ON OUR CAR WILL TELL THE TRUTH AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE OTHER DRIVER WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE HIT OUR CAR REALLY DID HIT OUR CAR. Yvette Gomez argued that, THE BLUE HONDA DID HIT OUR CAR BECAUSE ITS DRIVER AND WITNESSES SAID SO.’
Elana Laham states, ‘We never saw a report from the police…We requested a copy from the police but never received one.’ Yvette Gomez…EVADES THE ENTIRE ISSUE BY CHANGING THE SUBJECT.
Yvette Gomez seems to have only one of three responses to our statements: She either IGNORES, EVADES, or does NOT BELIEVE (US). Yvette Gomez states, ‘The other driver’s witnesses said that the other driver was making a left hand turn.’ Elana Laham states that, ‘cars on left turn pocket were not moving.’ Yvette Gomez then says, ‘Why would they say that?’ Elana Laham’s reply was, ‘I cannot be responsible for what other people say.’
We are disturbed that Yvette Gomez…seems to believe THAT THE POLICE KNOW EVERYTHING EVEN ABOUT A CAR ACCIDENT THAT THEY DID NOT WITNESS.”
If the reader is interested in viewing letter dated 6/27/05 sent to Edward B. Rust. Jr., CEO State Farm from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Letter Edward Rust Jr. at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The Wounds Don't Lie!
The following are excerpts from the Letter dated 7/3/05 sent to Edward B. Rust, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams:
“In Reference (2) [Letter dated 6/27/05 to Edward B. Rust Jr., CEO State Farm], we expressed our concern that your employee, Yvette Gomez of State Farm’s Special Investigative Unit, appears COMPLETELY BIASED AGAINST US, and either IGNORES, EVADES, or REFUSES TO BELIEVE WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY. In this letter, we present the HARD INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE that completely shows without a doubt THAT THE SO CALLED OTHER VEHICLE…COULD NOT HAVE HIT OUR CAR…SOME OTHER VEHICLE REALLY HIT OUR CAR.
The vehicle that we were told hit our car is BLUE. Refer to Reference (3) [Traffic Collision Report]. The accident left WHITE streaks on our left rear quarter panel. [See photos of our car from State Farm].
If the reader is interested in viewing State Farm’s photos of our car then please go to hyperlink State Farm Photos at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The BLUE Honda could NOT have made WHITE streaks on our car because
1. The color of the Honda’s bumper is BLACK, not WHITE.
2. The Honda’s body is BLUE.
…the Honda’s body could not have even hit our car for the following reasons:
2(a) All Models of 1991 Honda Civic series have the same bumper design. The bumper PROTRUDES COMPLETELY OUT IN FRONT of the HONDA’S BODY. This is shown in the Factory Manual for the Honda Civic and in photos we have of a sample 1991 Honda Civic.
If the reader is interested in viewing the 1990-1991 Manual for the Honda Civic under section entitled “Body Specifications Hatchback page 3-14 and under section entitled “Body Specifications Sedan” page 3-15 and under section entitled “Front Bumper Replacement” page 20-64 along with the photos we took of a 1991 Honda Civic then please go to hyperlink 1990-1991 Manual Honda Civic and Photos of a 1991 Honda Civic at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
2(b) According to the TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT Reference (3), the Blue Honda Civic sustained MINOR DAMAGE…
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report page one and under section entitled “ Summary” page four then please go to hyperlink Traffic Collision Report Page 1 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Did State Farm…look at or take photos of the blue 1991 Honda Civic …to see if it…had ANY WOUNDS, and if so, what kind of WOUNDS?”
The following are the reasons why WE are the CREDIBLE PARTY:
1. The WOUNDS…show that the Blue 1991 Honda Civic could NOT have even HIT our CAR.
2. In Reference (5) [Faxed letter dated 4/10/05 to Pam Wilson] we requested that State Farm investigate to see if a CAMERA existed at the intersection where the ACCIDENT occurred. WHY WOULD WE DO THAT IF WE WERE THE LIABLE PARTY?
If the reader is interested in viewing letter dated 7/3/05 sent to Edward B. Rust. Jr., CEO State Farm from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Letter Edward B. Rust Jr. at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following are excerpts from the Fax dated 7/15/05 sent to James E. Arnold, Claim Team Manager, State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams:
“We received your phone messages of 13 and 14 July 2005. Following this lead sheet is a letter sent to Mr. Edward Rust Jr., CEO, dated 3 July 2005…You need to read this letter.
Please take special note of letter dated 3 July 2005 that it is no longer our opinion, but via hard evidence it is fact, that the WOUNDS ON OUR CAR SHOW THAT THE CAR THAT CLAIMED TO HIT OUR CAR COULD NOT HAVE HIT OUR CAR.
Following this lead sheet: 4-page letter dated 3 July 2005”
If the reader is interested in viewing fax dated 7/15/05 sent to James E. Arnold, Claim Team Manager, State Farm from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Fax James E. Arnold at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following are excerpts from the Letter dated 7/15/05 sent to the Lahams from James E. Arnold, Claim Team Manager, State Farm Insurance Company:
“I have reviewed ALL of the EVIDENCE obtained regarding this accident including the statements of the parties, the PHOTOS of the DAMAGE to the VEHICLES and the police report.
In reviewing the police report it is clear that you were at the scene and that the impact occurred between your vehicle and the vehicle DRIVEN by PATSY MURAKAMI…the vehicle DRIVEN by PATSY MURAKIMI
[READER’S NOTE: JAMES E. ARNOLD OF STATE FARM CAN’T KEEP HIS LIES STRAIGHT! ACCORDING TO TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT THAT WE RECEIVED ON 5/26/05, THE OTHER CAR’S DRIVER WAS KATRINA AYUMI KURAISHI!!]
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report under section entitled “ Narrative Supplements” under subsection entitled “Statements” and subsection entitled “Summary” page four then please go to hyperlink Traffic Collision Report Page 4 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
You indicate in your inquiry that the PAINT TRANSFER was the WRONG COLOR. The PAINT TRANSFER in the photos taken at the Irvine Operation Center on 4/1/05 is in fact BLUE GREY in COLOR. This supports the impact with the Honda in question.
[READER’S NOTE: WE NEVER RECEIVED ANY SUCH PHOTOS FROM STATE FARM. MOREOVER THE OTHER DRIVER’S CAR WAS NOT BLUE GREY IN COLOR IT WAS BLUE. FURTHERMORE, OUR PHOTOS TAKEN ON 3/26/05, THE DAY THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED, WERE TAKEN IN SUNLIGHT NOT SHADOW AND SHOWED NO BLUE WHATSOEVER, ONLY GRAY-BLACK BUMPER MARKS AND WHITE STREAKS.]
If the reader is interested in viewing the photographs we took of our damaged car on the day the accident occurred (3/26/05) then please go to hyperlink Laham's Photos at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing the letter, dated 7/15/05, sent to the Lahams from James. E. Arnold, Claim Team Manager, State Farm Insurance Company then please go to hyperlink Letter James E. Arnold at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following are excerpts from the Letter dated 7/18/05 sent to the Lahams from the Auto Reconstruction Team, State Farm Insurance Company:
“We are writing to let you know that we have completed the above investigation for the above referenced accident…It has been determined the driver of your vehicle was…at fault for this accident…because of failing to yield the right of way.
If you would like us to reconsider, please send your request to us in writing…We will CAREFULLY review your claim…and let you know of the decision…”
If the reader is interested in viewing the letter, dated 7/18/05, sent to the Lahams from the Auto Reconstruction Team, State Farm Insurance Company then please go to hyperlink Letter Auto Reconstruction Team at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following are excerpts from the Letter dated 7/18/05 sent to Edward B. Rust Jr., CEO, State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams:
“State Farm completely IGNORED the WHITE wounds on our car.
…the Traffic Collision Report, Reference (3) which the POLICE wrote up, states that there was only MINOR DAMAGE to the above Honda’s bumper. Therefore, since the bumper of the BLUE Honda Civic…did not CAVE IN, its BODY at NO time could have…made any CONTACT with our CAR.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report page one and under section entitled “ Summary” page four then please go to the following hyperlinks at www.bullcrapbusters.com:
Regarding State Farm’s statement about the wounds that the PAINT TRANSFER is BLUE-GREY in color: The BLUE 1991 Honda Civic…could NOT have transferred BLUE paint onto our car because its BUMPER is…BLOCKING its BODY from being able to HIT our CAR…Refer to the Factory Manual for ALL 1991 Honda Civics and photo of a 1991 Honda Civic, as we explained at length in Reference (2)[Letter dated 7/3/05 to Edward B. Rust Jr. CEO, State Farm Insurance Company].
If the reader is interested in viewing the 1990-1991 Manual for the Honda Civic under section entitled “Body Specifications Hatchback page 3-14 and under section entitled “Body Specifications Sedan” page 3-15 and under section entitled “Front Bumper Replacement” page 20-64 along with the photos we took of a 1991 Honda Civic then please go to hyperlink 1990-1991 Manual Honda Civic and Photos 1991 Honda Civic at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Did State Farm IGNORE the WHITE WOUNDS on our CAR because it CANNOT come up with a Bull Crap explanation for them???
Does State Farm think that people are so STUPID that they CANNOT see through the Bull Crap explanation regarding State Farm’s claim that the other driver made BLUE-GREY WOUNDS on our CAR???
How much money does State Farm lose now because of their screw up of one customer’s claim? (State Farm) looses $2,355.64 – to pay for an accident that we did not cause…$232.61 – to pay for a rental car for us because the other party caused a car accident…$1,462.46 – annual lost revenue because we will no longer do business with State Farm.
The geniuses at State Farm have cost State Farm...from one…customer…the total sum of $4,150.71…
Maybe that amount of money is nothing to you, but how much will it add up to when you compound it with all future revenue State Farm woulda, shoulda, coulda have received from us who were loyal customers of State Farm…and all future potential customers that will no longer…do business with State Farm because State Farm is earning itself a BAD REPUTATION, which no amount of…advertising will be able to rectify?
We conclude with the advertising slogan that State Farm has EARNED. ‘LIKE A BAD NIGHTMARE STATE FARM DOES NOT CARE.’
If the reader is interested in viewing the letter dated 7/18/05 sent to Edward B. Rust Jr., CEO State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Letter Edward B. Rust Jr. at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following are excerpts from the Letter dated 7/22/05 sent to the Lahams from State Farm Insurance Company:
“As a sample of GOOD business practice, we RANDOMLY select a sample of claims to confirm the ACCURACY of our records…We appreciate your business. BULL CRAP!!!
If the reader is interested in viewing the letter dated 7/22/05 sent to the Lahams from State Farm then please go to hyperlink Letter State Farm at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following are excerpts from the Letter dated 7/25/05 sent to Auto Reconsideration Team, State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams:
“The following evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that WE could NOT have been the AT FAULT for the subject car accident.
The police and so-called witnesses told us that a 1991 BLUE Honda Civic…HIT our CAR. See Reference (1) [Traffic Collision Report] ENCLOSED. However, the subject accident left WHITE paint streaks…on the left rear quarter panel of our car. See References (2) [photos in color from us of our car taken the day of the accident] and (3) [photos in black and white from State Farm of our car on 4/1/05] ENCLOSED.
The 1991 BLUE Honda Civic…could not have made the WHITE wounds on our CAR because
1) According to Reference (1) [Traffic Collision Report], the 1991 Honda Civic is BLUE in color.
2) According to Reference (4) [a bumper display from the Factory Manual for 1991 Honda Civics] ALL 1991 Honda Civic models have the same design. This bumper protrudes completely OUT IN FRONT of the HONDA’S BODY, which is also shown in Reference (5)[photo of the bumper of a 1991 Honda Civic]. Therefore, the BUMPER of the 1991 Honda Civic…would have BLOCKED the above 1991 Honda Civic’s BODY so that the above 1991 Honda Civic’s BODY could NOT have made ANY CONTACT with our Car.
3) According to Reference (1) [Traffic Collision Report], the BUMPER of the 1991 Honda Civic…sustained MINOR DAMAGE. In addition, if the BUMPER of the 1991 Honda Civic…did collide with the rear quarter panel of our car, its BUMPER could NOT have sustained any substantial damage, because such an impact would be where the 1991 Honda Civic…is STRONG and our CAR is WEAK. Therefore, the BUMPER of the 1991 Honda Civic…would have remained INTACT during the car accident. BLOCKING the above Honda Civic’s BODY, so that the above Honda Civic’s BODY could NOT have made ANY CONTACT with our CAR.
4) According to Reference (2) [photos in color from us of our car taken the day of the accident] our color photos of the wounds that the subject accident made to our car, and also according to what we witnessed and documented on page 3 of Reference (6) [letter dated 3/31/05 to Pam Wilson, Claim’s Office State Farm Insurance Company], the BUMPER of the 1991 Honda Civic…is BLACK and therefore could NOT have made the WHITE wounds on our CAR.
In Reference (8), State Farm wrongfully…claims that, according to the State Farm photos, the PAINT TRANSFER shows that the BUMPER WOUNDS on our car are BLUE-GREY in color and therefore the above Honda impacted our car. This claim is totally FALSE because the 1991 Honda Civic…could NOT have made any BLUE WOUNDS on our CAR for the following reasons:
1) According to Reference (4) [a bumper display from the Factory Manual for 1991 Honda Civics] ALL 1991 Honda Civic models have the same design. This bumper protrudes completely OUT IN FRONT of the HONDA’S BODY, which is also shown in Reference (5)[photo of the bumper of a 1991 Honda Civic]. Therefore, the BUMPER of the 1991 Honda Civic…would have BLOCKED the above 1991 Honda Civic’s BODY so that the above 1991 Honda Civic’s BODY could NOT have made ANY CONTACT with our Car.
2) According to Reference (1) [Traffic Collision Report], the BUMPER of the 1991 Honda Civic…sustained MINOR DAMAGE. In addition, if the BUMPER of the 1991 Honda Civic…did collide with the rear quarter panel of our car, its BUMPER could NOT have sustained any substantial damage, because such an impact would be where the 1991 Honda Civic…is STRONG and our CAR is WEAK. Therefore, the BUMPER of the 1991 Honda Civic…would have remained INTACT during the car accident. BLOCKING the above Honda Civic’s BODY, so that the above Honda Civic’s BODY could NOT have made ANY CONTACT with our CAR.
3) According to Reference (2) [photos in color from us of our car taken the day of the accident] our color photos of the wounds that the subject accident made to our car, and also according to what we witnessed and documented on page 3 of Reference (6) [letter dated 3/31/05 to Pam Wilson, Claim’s Office State Farm Insurance Company], the BUMPER of the 1991 Honda Civic…is BLACK and therefore could NOT have made the BLUE wounds on our CAR.
4) State Farm’s claim that Caliber Collision photos, THAT STATE FARM NEVER SENT US, show BLUE-GREY PAINT TRANSFER to our CAR is NOT VALID because the LIGHTING DIFFERS FROM ONE SET OF PHOTOGRAPHS TO ANOTHER. To prove our point, the PHOTOS OF OUR CAR show the BUMPER WOUNDS to be GREY-BLACK in color. See Reference (2) [photos in color from us of our car taken the day of the accident]. This was due to the fact that we made sure to POSITION our CAR’s WOUNDS so that they were in the SUNLIGHT and not SHADOWED and thereby SHOWED up as their TRUE NATURAL COLOR.
The following are the reasons why we are the CREDIBLE party and therefore are NOT at FAULT for the subject car accident:
1) Since the HARD EVIDENCE of the WOUNDS on our CAR SHOW CONCLUSIVELY that the BLUE 1991 Honda Civic…could NOT have HIT our CAR, the so-called WITNESSES to our car accident…are NOT CREDIBLE.
2) We were the ones who requested that State Farm investigate whether or not there was a CAMERA at the intersection where the car accident occurred. See References (8) [Fax letter dated 4/10/05 to Pam Wilson, Claim’s Office, State Farm Insurance Company] and (9) [Letter dated 4/19/05 from Wendy Kaiser, Claim Representative, State Farm Insurance Company] ENCLOSED. We saw what appeared to be a CAMERA. We would NOT request to see if there was a CAMERA at the intersection where the car accident occurred IF we RAN a RED LIGHT and therefore are the LIABLE PARTY.
As we stated back on 31 March 2005 to State Farm in Reference (6) [letter dated 3/31/05 to Pam Wilson, Claim’s Office State Farm Insurance Company],…we strongly believe that the subject car accident in which we are involved is a SCAM. However, since the other party failed to hit us with enough impact in order to claim…bodily injury and property damages, their SCAM went awry. Nonetheless, they must continue to claim that they are in a car accident with us so that their SCAM is NOT exposed.
Enclosures
(1) Traffic Collision Report
(2) Photos in color from us of our car taken March 26, 2005 (the Day of the Car Accident)
(3) Photos black and white from State Farm of our car taken April 1, 2005 (April’s Fool’s Day)
(4) 1991 Honda Civic Factory Manual: Bumper display
(5) Photo of bumper of 1991 Honda Civic
(6) Fax letter dated March 31, 2005
(7) Letter dated July 15, 2005
(8) Fax letter dated April 10, 2005
(9) Letter dated April 19, 2005.”
[READER’S NOTE: THE ABOVE ENCLOSURES WERE SENT ALONG WITH THE ABOVE LETTER TO STATE FARM’S AUTO RECONSIDERATION TEAM.]
If the reader is interested in viewing the letter dated 7/25/05 sent to Auto Reconsideration Team, State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Letter Auto Reconsideration Team at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following are excerpts from the Letter dated 8/8/05 sent to the Lahams from Liz A. Robinson, Team Manager, Auto Reconstruction Team, State Farm Insurance Company:
“We have received your request to reconsider our determination of FAULT for this accident, and I have reviewed your letter along with the claim file investigation…when the law requires a driver to ‘yield the right of way’ to another vehicle, this means the driver must let the other vehicle go first.
After CAREFUL (BULL CRAP!!!) review of the information gathered during the handling of your claim…it appears based upon the information known at this time, including information provided by the witnesses, Michael failed to yield the right of way…”
[READER’S NOTE: WOW!!! AS THEY SAY STATE FARM REFUSES TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE FACTS.]
If the reader is interested in viewing the letter, dated 8/8/05, sent to the Lahams from Liz. A. Robinson, Team Manager, Auto Reconsideration Team, State Farm Insurance Company then please go to hyperlink Letter Liz A. Robinson Auto Reconsideration Team at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The following are excerpts from the Fax dated 8/16/05 sent to Edward B. Rust Jr., CEO, State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams:
Getting your entire company to claim that Michael Laham is at fault for the car accident that we were involved in on 3/26/05 based upon pure HEARSAY…does NOT make the TRUTH go away. The HARD EVIDENCE/WOUNDS ON OUR CAR CLEARLY SHOW, VIA OUR PHOTOS AND STATE FARM PHOTOS THAT THE CAR THAT CLAIMED TO HAVE HIT OUR CAR – a 1991 blue Honda Civic –COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY HIT OUR CAR.
IGNORING THE FACT that this BLUE Honda Civic could NOT have made WHITE PAINT WOUNDS on our CAR because the Honda Civic is blue, not white…does NOT make the TRUTH go away.
IGNORING THE FACT that this BLUE Honda Civic could NOT have made the BLUE PAINT WOUNDS on our CAR because it has a PROTRUDING BUMPER that BLOCKS its BODY from being able to make CONTACT with our CAR, does NOT make the TRUTH go away.
The TRUTH is that Michael Laham is NOT at fault for the accident of 3/26/05 and therefore did NOT run a red light. And that will ALWAYS be the TRUTH. But, you obviously do NOT care what the TRUTH is…
…You never answered our question that we asked you as to why Yvette Gomez, during our live interview with her, asked us the following very invasive questions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the car accident that we were involved in on 3/26/05. Why were we asked these questions?!?!?! We DEMAND an answer. If anything happens to Michael Laham at his place of work, we will hold YOU responsible!!!
1. What is your position at Boeing?
2. Who is your immediate Supervisor?
3. Who do you report to?
4. Do you take medication?
5. Why don’t you live in any one place more than one year?”
If the reader is interested in viewing the Fax, dated 8/16/05, sent to Edward B. Rust Jr., CEO, State Farm Insurance Company from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Fax Edward B. Rust Jr. at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
On 3/26/05, Michael Laham filed a Traffic Accident Report with the DMV. Never did State Farm ever send us the results of that filing. So, on 8/31/05 we requested of our new automobile insurance company, Pacific Partners, to look into the matter. On 9/6/05, State Farm sent a reply letter to Pacific Partners automobile insurance company. It was only then that State Farm was willing to divulge the details. As it turns out State Farm filed our so-called AT FAULT accident TWICE with the DMV.
If the reader is interested in viewing the DMV Traffic Accident Report, letter, dated 8/31/05, sent by Mary Kaye Antonelli, Claim Representative, Pacific Partners to State Farm, and the letter dated 9/6/05 sent from Mabel Ayotte, Claim Representative, State Farm to Pacific Partners along with its attachment of the Unitrin DMV computer printout showing TWICE that we were the at fault driver of the car accident that occurred on 3/26/05 then please go to hyperlink DMV, Pacific Partners, State Farm, and Unitrin at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
From Katrina to Katrina
The consolation prize turned out to be that the Lahams had to pay a total of $1,200.00 over a three year period of hiked up insurance premiums at an increased rate of $400.00 annually as a result of their so called at fault car accident. In spite of that, the Lahams performed the Alamo on State Farm’s unethical and amoral business practices by boycotting their car insurance company. Thereby State Farm did itself in. By REFUSING TO CONDUCT PROPER INVESTIGATION of the car accident that the Lahams were involved in, State Farm cost itself $5, 677.00 for paying both the damages to the Laham’s car and the damages to the other driver’s car as well, which had no damages since it was never in any collision with the Laham’s car. Moreover, State Farm did itself in by losing the Lahams as its customers. For every year after that, indefinitely, it will cost State Farm $1,800.00 that it coulda, woulda, shoulda earned for both automobile insurance and renter’s insurance from the Lahams if the Lahams remained its loyal patrons. The cosmic rule of economics cannot be broken. So if a business chooses to screw a customer, since it has the attitude that it is too big to fail, the business screws itself. Now if you think State Farm is so stupid that it does not even know that it is stupid for doing that wait until you read the next section.
Sometimes the universe is ironically uncanny and portrays the truth just as we have experienced it.
On 3/26/05, the name of the so-called other drive who supposedly was involved in a car accident with the Lahams was KATRINA, spelled just like that. Well, two years later and one day later, on 3/22/07 the Lahams were surfing the Yahoo when they discovered another incident involving the name KATRINA and the “LIKE A BAD NIGHTMARE STATE FARM DOES NOT CARE” automobile insurance company.
The following is an excerpt from the article entitled “Judge blocks class action vs. State Farm,
By Michael Kunzelman, Associated Press Writer:
“A federal judge…refused to allow a class action (lawsuit) against State Farm Insurance Cos. over the insurer’s…claims on Mississippi Gulf Coast after Hurricane [here it comes] KATRINA.”
We found it on: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070322/ap_on_bi_ge/katrina_insurance
&printer=;_ylt=Am...
If the reader is interested in viewing “Judge blocks class action vs. State Farm” article then please go to hyperlink Yahoo News Katrina Class Action Lawsuit against State Farm at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
Lately, State Farm keeps airing over the media costly commercials that offer potentially new customers a 40% discount off of its insurance premiums. State Farm sure knows how to rip itself off!
The Police Department’s WEIRD Conduct
The Orange County Sheriff came about THIRTY MINUTES after the car accident occurred with FOUR police cars, even though the car accident had amounted to nothing more and nothing less than a FENDER BENDER. The FOUR police cars remained at the scene of the car accident even though the car accident had amounted to nothing more and nothing less than a FENDER BENDER. WHY???!!!
DEPUTY T. SPAULDING (one of the officers who came to the scene of the car accident) asked us if our car’s front airbags deployed when our car was involved in nothing more and nothing less than a FENDER BENDER. WHY???!!!
The Orange County Sheriff was NOT at the scene of the car accident that we were involved in. Yet, the Orange County Sheriff believed the FALSE statements made by two NON-CREDIBLE so-called WITNESSES. WHY??!!! The witnesses claimed that we hit the other driver’s car when the other driver claimed that their car hit our car, and the two witnesses claimed that they were able to see the other driver’s traffic light when they were not. [See the above section entitled, “The so-called Witnesses Weird Behavior” for details].
The Orange County Sheriff was NOT at the scene of the car accident that we were involved in. Yet, the Orange County Sheriff believed the FAKE testimony made by one BOGUS so-called other driver. WHY???!!! The other driver’s car was BLUE in color so it was NOT the vehicle that hit our car. Our car had been damaged by white streaks not blue paint marks. [See the above section entitled, “The Wounds Don’t Lie!” for details].
The Orange County Sheriff was NOT at the scene of the car accident that we were involved in. Yet the Orange County Sheriff made the conclusion that based upon the STATEMENT that WE made about the car accident that we were involved in, that we caused the car accident. WHY???!!! BOTH drivers asserted that they were NOT the at fault driver.
OFFICER J. R GALVEZ Badge #5361 wrote the following narrative in the Traffic Collision Report:
“D-1 (Laham) was interviewed at the scene and stated that he was traveling w/b Lake Forest dr. #2 lane, and that he was approaching Pittsford. D-1 stated that he entered the intersection of Pittsford with a GREEN LIGHT and that, as he entered the intersection he felt impact to the left rear portion of his vehicle.”
“D-2 (Kuraishi) was interviewed at the scene and stated that she was traveling e/b Lake Forest dr. in the left turn lane and made a left turn with a GREEN ARROW. “
OFFICER J. R GALVEZ Badge #5361 wrote the following narrative in the Traffic Collision Report: “D-1 (Laham) caused this collision by being in violation of CVC 21453(a)-failure to stop for a red light. This was determined from BOTH driver’s statements, as well as witness statements.”
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report’s Narrative Supplemental page four then please go to hyperlink Traffic Collision Report Page 4 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
In spite of the above, the Orange County Sheriff, officer Deputy T. Spaulding badge #2761 and officer J. R Galvez badge #5361, who were NOTat the scene of the car accident, that we were involved in, and who wrote up the Traffic Collision Report, made a BASELESS conclusion based upon NO EVIDENCE via two NON CREDIBLE so-called witness and one BOGUS so-called other driver that we were AT FAULT for the car accident that we were involved in. WHY???!!!
DEPUTY T. SPAULDING (one of the officers at the scene of the car accident) came over to Elana Laham and Michael Laham and asked, “WHAT HAPPENED AT BANK OF AMERICA?” WHY???!!! The Lahams refused to answer his question since it had nothing whatsoever to do with the automobile accident that the Lahams were involved in and because the Lahams had already left Bank of America, in a civil and peaceful manner a while ago.
The Orange County Sheriff refused to correspond with us in WRITING about questions they wanted us to answer about the car accident that we were involved in. WHY???!!!
The following are excerpts from the fax dated 5/21/05 sent to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department from the Lahams:
“I received your message on my answering machine. We do not understand why your Sheriff Department needs to speak to us because we told your Sheriff Department all we know about the subject accident in our four-page fax of March 31, 2005…
If the reader is interested in viewing the four-page fax dated 3/31/05 sent to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Fax Pam Wilson at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
But if your Sheriff Department has further questions…you can send us correspondence…listing your questions in writing, and we will answer your questions promptly in writing.
The reason for answering your questions in writing is that we need documentation of what your Sheriff Department asked and what we answered. We need this documentation because we have had bad experiences with police agencies refusing to give us documentation to which we are entitled, even when we paid for it! And then they refused to refund our money.”
If the reader is interested in viewing the above fax dated 5/21/05 to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department from the Lahams then please go to hyperlink Fax Orange County Sheriff's Department at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
The Orange County Sheriff’s Department never replied to our above fax.
The Orange County Sheriff did not give us a copy of the Traffic Collision Report until TWO MONTHS AFTER the car accident that we were involved in occurred. WHY???!!! The Fax Header on the top of every page of the Traffic Collision Report shows a date of 5/26/05. The car accident that the Lahams were involved in happened on 3/26/05.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report’s Summary Section page one then please go to hyperlink Traffic Collision Report Page 1 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report’s Summary Section page two then please go to hyperlink Traffic Collision Report Page 2 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report’s Summary Section page four then please go to hyperlink Traffic Collision Report Page 4 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.
If the reader is interested in viewing the Traffic Collision Report’s Summary Section page five then please go to hyperlink Traffic Collision Report Page 5 at www.bullcrapbusters.com
Why did the Orange County Sheriff write up a FABRICATED Traffic Collision Police Report based upon the FALSE statements of two NON-CREDIBLE so-called WITNESSES and the FAKE testimony of one BOGUS so-called other driver? Why did the Orange County Sheriff IGNORE the INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE from a NEUTRAL SOURCE - the WOUNDS on the Laham’s car – PROVING that the so-called two witnesses and the one so-called other driver were INVALID? Due to the above observations, the one and only reasonable conclusion that the Lahams have is that the Orange County Sheriff Police staged a car accident in order to badly injure or kill the Lahams while putting the blame on the victim – the Lahams – for the damages. The Lahams just happened to be LUCKY enough that the Orange County Sheriff POLICE failed to PLOW HARD enough and FAST enough into the Laham’s car to succeed. Must have been a timing issue. Therefore, the Orange County Sheriff POLICE’S staged car accident went AWRY.
www.bullcrapbusters.com
 | ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
