Discussion:
USAEYES - Confessions of a LASIK Hitman
(too old to reply)
Brent Hanson - USAEYES-FRAUD.com
2010-03-14 06:02:40 UTC
Permalink
The following statements have been written by Glenn Hagele:

http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa/brent_hanson/06-AS00839/2010-03-March/2010-03-11_tro_application_suppress_mobley_docs_points.pdf

EVENTS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO INSTANT MOTION

A timeline index of the described events is included to assist the Court.

A - Defendant Receives Offer of Information About Plaintiff Defendant
Brent Hanson was contacted via email by a person using the alias "Just
Me" and the email address ***@hotmail.com. Just Me identified
himself only as a person who had "been working for [Plaintiff] for 14
months" and held that he possessed evidence of criminal acts. Just Me
further offered to provide "documentation" and "sworn statements"
relating to Plaintiff if Defendant would pay $800. Notably, Just Me
stated he would not testify to the accuracy of the documents or
statements. The communication made clear that Just Me was aware of the
instant action and was knowledgeable of Defendant's motivations and
acts, but did not identify the role, if any, of Just Me in the instant
action nor did Just Me define the nature of the working relationship
with Plaintiff (Declaration of Glenn Hagele in Support of Plaintiff s
Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel. "Hagele Decl" pg 1, para 1, Ex
01). Defendant forwarded the offer to his counsel, James R. Donahue of
the law firm Caulfield, Davies, and Donahue, LLP (Hagele Decl pg 12,
para 31).

.......

About three weeks after Defendant's Washington state petitions, Burch's
counsel demanded

Communications") (Hagele Decl, pg 10, para 20. Ex 20). Exactly two weeks
later, Defendant served a Decl, pg 9 para 12, Ex 12). converted it into
a public record, allowing future misuse to be covered with an argument
of judicial production of all communications with Mobley that were in
Plaintiffs possession ("Privileged Mobley request for production of
documents on Plaintiff seeking Privileged Mobley Communications (Hagele
Burch again demanded the Mobley Communications (Hagele Decl, pg 10, para
21, Ex 21) and moved the North Carolina court for sanctions against
Plaintiff because Plaintiff had refused to produce the Privileged Mobley
Communications in discovery on the same grounds of work product
privilege. The North Carolina court ordered Plaintiff to produce
Privileged Mobley Communications, however allowed protection of them
under a court order that would restrict access to "Attorneys Eyes Only",
which is in harmony with the California Work Product Doctrine (Hagele
Decl, pg 10, para 22, Ex 22).
Not surprisingly, Burch moved the North Carolina court to declassify the
Privileged Mobley Communications (Hagele Decl, pg 11 para 23, Ex 23).
Despite objections on grounds of work product
privilege, on 8 March 2010 the North Carolina Court removed the
confidentiality protection afforded the Privileged Mobley
Communications. In its proposed order, Burch made clear her intent to
distribute the
Privileged Mobley Communications to Defendant and Defendant's counsel
(Hagele Decl, pg 12 para 32, Ex 27). Defendant has successfully
manipulated discovery to gain access to privileged communications
he would not otherwise be allowed to view.

__________________________________________

The following statements have been written by a Judge in California:


The Court, having considered the above entitled ex parte application
fcjwtthout a hearing D after hearing with appearance as noted above,
rules as follows: the application is denied

http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa/brent_hanson/06-AS00839/2010-03-March/2010-03-11_tro_denied.pdf

__________________________________________

http://www.lasikfraud.com/news/archives/000226.html

On December 14, 2009 Jonathan Sasser, the attorney for Glenn Hagele,
filed a motion to withdraw from representation and cited the following
provisions of North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.16(b(3)
1.16(b)(4) 1.16(b(5), The portion of the North Carolina Rules of
Professional Conduct which Jonathan Sasser cited is:

Rule 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation

(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a
client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the
representation of a client if:

(1) the representation will result in violation of law or the Rules of
Professional Conduct;

(2) the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the
lawyer’s ability to represent the client; or

(3) the lawyer is discharged.

(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from
representing a client if:

(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on
the interests of the client; or

(2) the client knowingly and freely assents to the termination of the
representation; or

(3) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s
services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent; or

(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers
repugnant, imprudent, or contrary to the advice and judgment of the
lawyer, or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement; or

(5) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or
fraud; or
Glenn - USAEyes.org
2010-03-14 15:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent Hanson - USAEYES-FRAUD.com
__________________________________________
http://www.lasikfraud.com/news/archives/000226.html
On December 14, 2009 Jonathan Sasser, the attorney for Glenn Hagele,
filed a motion to withdraw from representation and cited the following
provisions of North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.16(b(3)
1.16(b)(4) 1.16(b(5),  The portion of the North Carolina Rules of
Friday, February 05,2010

James R. Donahue
Caulfield, Davies & Donahue, LLP
Post Office Box 277010 Attorneys for Hanson
Sacramento, CA 95827-7010 Hagele v Hanson
06AS00839

re: Demand for Immediate Removal and Cessation of Statement:
Glenn Hage1e's attorney files a motion to withdraw from representation
based on Hage1e's criminal activity

Mr. Donahue,

At the Internet webpage accessible through Unique Resource Locator
(URL)
http://www.******.com/doc/*********/Jon-Sasser-*****-*-*****-**-*****...
**-Glenn-Hagele-*****-**-******-*-********-********* your client has
published or caused to be published with a copy of a Motion For Leave
to Withdraw as Counsel, filed in The General Court of Justice Superior
Court Division, Wake County, North Carolina, case 7CVS19854, the
headline and body copy "Glenn Hage1e's attorney files a motion to
withdraw from representation based on Hage1e's criminal activity"

The relevant motion states the grounds are under North Carolina Rules
of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(3), 1.16(b)(4) & 1.16(b)(5) (1997).
Rule 1.16(b)(3) reads; "the client insists upon pursuing an objective
that the lawyer considers repugnant, imprudent or contrary to the
advice and judgment of the lawyer". Rule 1.16(b)(4) reads; "the client
fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding
the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the
lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled". Rule 1.16(b)
(5) reads; "the representation has been rendered unreasonably
difficult by the client". None of these grounds make any accusation or
inference to criminal activity of any kind.
(http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/aoc/barrules. html)

Demand is herewith made that Mr. Hanson immediately stop publishing
the false statement that my counsel has moved to withdraw from
representation based on criminal activity and that Mr. Hanson take
prompt corrective action, absent which I shall have no choice but to
seek appropriate redress with the Court.

Mr. Hanson has made a written statement of fact, rather than opinion,
that violates my constitutional rights, places me in a false light,
tends to injure and in fact does cause injury to my occupation and
character, and/or exposes me to hatred, contempt, ridicule or shame.
Moreover, Mr. Hanson's written statement constitutes defamation per
se, which causes me substantial injury and interferes with my ability
to conduct my business.

I herewith demand of your client the following:

1. Immediately remove or cause to be removed those portions of all
publicly accessible Internet web pages he controls that include any
statements stating or inferring allegations of criminal activity
against me by my counsel Jon Sasser, including, but not limited to,
the statement published at URL
http://www.******.com/doc/*********/Jon-Sasser-*****-*-*****-**-*****...
**-Glenn-Hagele-*****-**-******-*-********-*********.

2. Immediately remove or cause to be removed any statements by Mr.
Hanson stating or inferring allegations of criminal activity against
me by my counsel Jon Sasser from the URL
http://www.******.com/doc/*********/Jon-Sasser-*****-*-*****-**-*****...
**-Glenn-Hagele-*****-**-******-*-********-*********
(i.e. the portion of the URL "Jon-Sasser-*****-*-*******-**-********-
****-
**************-**-Glenn-Hage1e-*****-**-Hagele-*-********-********").

3. Immediately remove or cause to be removed from all publicly
accessible newsgroup, bulletin board, or chat room statements by Mr.
Hanson stating or inferring allegations of criminal activity against
me by my counsel Jon Sasser.

4. Immediately privately retract all statements by Mr. Hanson stating
or inferring allegations of criminal activity against me by my counsel
Jon Sasser, that were distributed via email, conventional mail, or any
other private means.

5. Refrain from publishing, republishing, or communicating in any
manner to any third party the inference or statement that my counsel
Jon Sasser has made allegations of criminal activity against me.

If I do not receive by 5:00pm Tuesday 9 February 2010 a confirmation
from you that Mr. Hanson's statement has been removed as defined
above, I will seek injunctive relief from the Court that Mr. Hanson
refrain from making this defamatory statement.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

/s/
Glenn Hagele
Glenn - USAEyes.org
2010-03-14 15:48:33 UTC
Permalink
USAEyes is a trademark of the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality
Assurance (http://www.USAEyes.org). The use of usaeyes-fraud.com, and
other use of USAEyes by Brent Hanson is not approved by Council for
Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance. Arbitration under the authority
of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
found Brent Hanson's use of the USAEyes trademark inappropriate and
ordered the domains usaeyes.INFO, usaeyes.BIZ, usaeyes.NET transferred
to the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance.

See http://www.usaeyes.INFO

Glenn Hagele
Volunteer Executive Director
USAEyes (R)
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification

"Consider and Choose With Confidence" (TM)

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org

Lasik Bulletin Board
http://www.USAEyes.org/Ask-Lasik-Expert/

Mr. Hagele is not a doctor.

This transmission is on behalf of the Council for Refractive Surgery
Quality Assurance(TM) and is not endorsed, submitted, or
representative of any other organization or entity. Copyright Council
for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance(TM). All rights reserved.
All Rights Reserved
Scott
2010-03-15 06:23:40 UTC
Permalink
"Brent Hanson - USAEYES-FRAUD.com" <***@anywhere.com> wrote in
message news:6__mn.304346$***@newsfe28.ams2

Loading...