Brent Hanson - USAEYES-FRAUD.com
2010-03-14 06:02:40 UTC
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
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