The Case Against Attorney Steve Glickman

Steve Glickman Fraud and Perjury

2009-05-05T16:28:00.000-07:00

Although my entire case against Dr. Fischel is complex, understanding how my attorney, Steve Glickman committed fraud and perjury is quite simple. Glickman conspired with the defense to dismiss my punitive damages claim against Dr. Fischel (see "Motion to Strike Punitive Damages"). This was the real "teeth" of my suit. Glickman agreed to dismiss my punitive damages claim, without opposition (see "Non Opposition to Motion to Strike".

The supposed reason for dismissing my punitive damages was missing a statute of limitations. At the time, in January 2006, Steve Glickman told me that there was a limit of 2 years to file punitive damages against a doctor, that is 2 years after the injury occurred. Based on that, it would have been correct to dismiss my claim for punitive damages.

However, Glickman was lying. The statute used by the defense was California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) § 425.13 (see code). This code says that a claim for punitive damages against a doctor must be brought no more than 2 years after the original complaint is filed. My original complaint was filed October 10, 2003 (see original Malpractice Complaint, Baker vs. Fischel), my punitive damages claim was filed October 7, 2005 (see Fraud Complaint, Baker vs. Fischel).

No wonder Steve Glickman never showed me the Motion to Strike, and forbid me from being at the hearing. Only recently, in March 2009, have I learned that the defense used §425.13.

Now I've sued Steve Glickman for this fraud, and he has committed perjury. Under Oath, in a court of law, Steve Glickman said that he was substituted in as my attorney on October 12, 2005 (see Glickman Trial Brief). Since my original complaint was filed October 10, 2003 (see original Malpractice Complaint, Baker vs. Fischel), he says we missed the statute of limitations in §425.13. This is a lie.

Steve Glickman substituted in as my attorney in September of 2005. Steve Glickman wrote and filed my complaint, seeking punitive damages, on October 7, 2005. (see Fraud Complaint, Baker vs. Fischel).

October 7, 2005 is less than 2 years after October 10, 2003.

It is thus beyond all doubt that Steve Glickman conspired with attorneys for Richard Fischel, namely Suzanne De Rosa, of Schmid and Voiles, to deprive me of my civil rights, and to obstruct justice. I'm seriously contemplating suing Fischel, Glickman, de Rosa, and judge Randall Wilkinson in Federal Court for fraud, conspiracy, and racketeering.

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages, Baker vs. Fischel

2009-05-05T16:16:00.001-07:00

Non Opposition to Motion to Strike, Baker vs. Fischel

2009-05-05T16:13:00.001-07:00

Fraud Complaint, Baker vs. Fischel

2009-05-05T16:09:00.001-07:00

Steve Glickman, Link to Ripoff Report

2009-05-02T18:33:00.000-07:00

Here's the Ripoff Report I filed. It's very interesting that at first, the report was very high in the Google Ranking. Then mysteriously, it disappeared out of the Google search results altogether. Very odd.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/448/RipOff0448233.htm

Response to Glickman's Trial Brief

2009-05-02T11:43:00.001-07:00

Beverly Hills Small Claims Court

Alexander Baker
15911 Valley Wood Road
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Steve Glickman
Glickman & Glickman, A Law Corporation
9460 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 830
Beverly Hills, CA 91212
Defendant )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No.: BH 09S00432

Response to DEFENDEANT’S TRIAL BRIEF

Glickman Invokes a Non-Applicable Statue of Limitations

Defendant Glickman has asserted a 1 year statute of limitations in this matter, claiming that it is governed by CCP §340.6. §340.6 sets forth the time limitations on Legal Malpractice, i.e. negligence. The cause of action in this matter is fraud, not Legal Malpractice, and is properly governed by §CCP 338 (d). which clearly provides a 3 year limitation on actions arising from fraud. No claim of Legal Malpractice, nor any sort of negligence is alleged in this case.

Glickman Knowingly Flasifies a Date to Justify His Dismissing a Punitive Dagamges Claim in the Underlying Case

One glaring example of Glickman’s fraud was the hearing that took place on January 25, 2006 in the underlying fraud case against Surgeon Richard Fischel. Mr. Glickman agreed with, and did not oppose, a motion to strike the punitive damages claim from my fraud action. The basis for the motion to strike was §425.13, which indeed sets forth a two year limitation on seeking punitive damages against a health care practitioner. The limitation is 2 years after the originl complaint was filed, not after the damage occurred. From §425.13:

“The court shall not grant a motion allowing the filing of an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages if the motion for such an order is not filed within two years after the complaint or intitial pleading is filed . . .”

The original Medical Malpractice case of Baker vs. Fischel was filed October 10, 2003. The Fraud case of Baker vs. Fischel, seeking punitive damages, was written by attorney Steve Glickman, and filed in Orange County Municipal Court October 7, 2005. This is less than two years after the original complaint.

Thus, to deceive the court in the underlying case, defendant Glickman simply did not oppose the motion to strike. To deceive me, Glickman falsely tole me that there was a 2 year statute of limitations for punitive damages in a fraud action, counting from the date of injury. This assertion was fabricated out of whole cloth. To help ensure that I did not discover the deception, Glickman never showed me the defense motion, never cited the CCP statute to me, and forbind me from being present in the courtroom for the January 25, 2006 hearing.

To deceive the court now, in the present matter, defendant Glickman has employed the crudest of all tactics, falsifying a date. In his “DEFENDANT’S TRIAL BRIEF” Glickman states:

“Glickman did not substitute in as counsel for Baker until October 12, 2005”. (see exhibit 66 – Defendan’ts Trial Brief in Baker vs. Glickman)”.

Clearly defendant Steve Glickman filed the fraud complaint, Baker vs. Fischel, on October 7, 2005. The copy is stamped in the upper right hand corner as follows:

FILED

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE

CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

OCT 07 2005

ALAN SLATER, Clerk of the Court

By E PERREAULT Deputy

(Please see exhibit 52 – Complaint, Baker vs. Fischel).

Thus, defendant Glickman has knowingly issued a provably false statement, under oath, about a material issue. I ask that the court find perjury, and punish defendant Glickman accordingly.

Dated this 30th day of April, 2009

Alexander Baker
15911 Valley Wood Road
Sherman Oaks, CA. 91403

Complaint in Baker vs. Glickman

2009-05-02T11:01:00.001-07:00

Beverly Hills Small Claims Court

Alexander Baker
15911 Valley Wood Road
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403,
Plaintiff,

vs.

Steve Glickman
Glickman & Glickman, A Law Corporation
9460 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 830
Beverly Hills, CA 91212
Defendant )

Case No.: BH 09S00432

Statement of Claim

The evidence will show that the defendant, attorney Steve Glickman, is a fraud. As my attorney, Mr. Glickman deceived me repeatedly, I relied upon those deceptions, and I was harmed as a result. Mr. Glickman was retained to prosecute my action against a surgeon named Richard Fischel, in what the evidence will show was a very winnable case.

Mr. Glickman, of course, had a duty to prosecute my case to the fullest extent of the law. Instead, the evidence will show that he conspired with the defense attorneys to systematically dismiss the elements of my case, piece by piece, and put forth a clear effort to lose. Eventually, on the eve of trial, Steve Glickman insisted that I dismiss my case against Dr. Fischel altogether, or else I would have to act as my own attorney.

Facts (underlying case against Dr. Fischel)

1. Prior to October 2002, I was successful in the business of writing music.
2. In October 2002, at the hands of Richard Fischel MD, Ph.D., I underwent a surgery called ETS. This was to treat an embarrassing cosmetic problem I had with excessive facial sweating (“hyperhidrosis”).
3. Dr. Fischel had a legal duty to inform me about the known risks of ETS surgery.
4. Pre-Op, Dr. Fischel warned me about exactly 2 possible side effects - “Horner’s Syndrome” which he said was “a little bit of a droopy eyelid” and “Compensatory Sweating” which he said was “mild moistness” on the lower body (see exhibit 14 - my consultation notes, exhibit 9 - CD-ROM transcript, exhibit 1 – Fischel’s consultation notes, p.7).
5. Dr. Fischel stated that there was a 0% chance of Horner’s Syndrome (see exhibit D), and a 1% chance of Compensatory Sweating (see exhibit 9 - CD-ROM transcript).
6. Dr. Fischel’s website mentioned only the same 2 side effects (see exhibit 6 - hyperhidrosis.la website).
7. Dr. Fischel’s educational CD-ROM video mentioned only the same 2 side effects (see exhibit 9 - CD-ROM transcript).
8. Dr. Fischel himself, in a prior court case, mentioned only the same 2 side effects, and stated under oath that he always gave the same routine speech to all his prospective ETS surgery patients (see testimony in Driscoll v Fischel, p. 17, line 15; excerpted in exhibit 20).
9. 3 other Fischel patients provided declarations indicating that they had been warned only of the same 2 side effects (see declarations by Brody, Mahan and Zacarias).
10. I had taken handwritten notes during my consultation, and they indicated only the same 2 side effects (see exhibit 14 - my consultation notes).
11. Dr. Fischel’s own notes taken during the consultation indicate only the same 2 side effects (see Exhibit 1 - Fischel Office Consultation, p.7)
12. After ETS surgery, beginning in November of 2002, I complained to Dr. Fischel of many physical and mental problems I was having, including severe pain, and a very weak heartbeat.
13. In November 2002, Dr. Fischel gave me an EKG treadmill test, in which my heart rate could only go up to 110 beats per minute (see exhibit 1 - medical records. Normal maximum heart rate for a 42 year old man is 180-200 beats per minute.
14. At the EKG session, Dr. Fischel stated there was no possible way that ETS surgery could affect the heart. He suggested I was “out of shape” (see exhibit 1 - medical records).
15. In May 2003, Dr. Fischel wrote a letter to me, post-op, in which he admitted warning of only 2 side effects. In the same letter Dr. Fischel stated “Your cardiac complaints are a mystery to me” (see exhibit 3 - Fischel letter, p. 5).
16. Eventually, during the course of my lawsuit against him, Dr. Fischel claimed to have warned me about 6 side effects, including heart problems (Fischel deposition p.26, line 18-25), anhidrosis (Fischel deposition p. 126 line 13 – p. 127, line 13), changes to the sensation of touch (Fischel deposition p. 111, line 1), and chronic nerve pain (Fischel deposition p. 130, line 23). (Deposition excerpts are exhibit 20).
17. ETS surgery involves cutting out parts of the Sympathetic Nervous System. These parts, known as “T2”, “T3”, and “T4”, provide nerve function to the heart, the lungs, the blood vessels, the thyroid gland, sweat glands, fat tissue, sensory nerves, bone, bone marrow, and other organs glands and muscles.
18. ETS surgery is disabling. The words “disabled” and “disabling” appear in the medical literature with regard to ETS surgery (see “Are We Paying a High Price for Surgical Sympathectomy?”, abstract).
19. ETS surgery is proven in the published medical literature to cause dysfunction of the heart, the lungs, the blood vessels, arrector pili muscles, thyroid gland, skin, bone, bone marrow, sensory nerves, and other organs glands and muscles.
20. ETS surgery destroys all sweating on the top 1/3 of the body, a condition called “anhidrosis”.
21. ETS surgery causes excessive sweating on the lower 2/3 of the body, a condition known as “hyperhidrosis”. The published literature indicates that the total amount of sweating increases after sympathectomy. Thus Dr. Fischel was attempting to treat excessive sweating by causing more excessive sweating (see exhibit 56 - “The Effect of Upper Dorsal Sympathectomy on Total Body Perspiration”).
22. ETS surgery is psycho-surgery. ETS is routinely used to treat psychiatric conditions such as panic attacks and schizophrenia, because it profoundly decreases the ability to experience fear, thrills and excitement (see exhibit 60).
23. After ETS, I found it extremely difficult to continue my career of writing music, because the missing emotions have rendered music meaningless.
24. ETS surgery greatly compromises temperature regulation (see thermal image). When pressed, Dr. Fischel likened ETS to “removing the thermostat” (Fischel deposition p. 106, line 1)
25. ETS surgery greatly compromises exercise capacity (see exhibit 57 - “Effects of Endoscopic Transthoracic Sympathectomy on Hemodynamic and Neurohumoral Responses to Exercise in Humans, graphs on page 3).
26. In November 2004 I participated in a study of ETS patients at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (“NINDS”)(see exhibit 12).
27. The NINDS study on me provided empirical confirmation of disability to my heart, blood vessels, thyroid, temperature regulation, and blood chemistry, all caused by ETS surgery (see exhibit 12, also heart and thyroid PET scans).

Facts (case against Steve Glickman)

1. In September 2005 I retained attorney Steve Glickman to prosecute Dr. Fischel for fraud.
2. Steve Glickman was aware of my injuries, and aware of my documentation showing the injuries.
3. Steve Glickman drafted a fraud complaint against Dr. Fischel. The complaint only dealt with the issue of sweating. The complaint did not mention my heart, nor my lungs, nor my blood vessels, nor my thyroid gland. It did not mention the fact that the top 1/3 of my body was 10 degrees hotter than the lower 2/3, nor did it mention the issue of temperature regulation at all. The complaint did not mention the fact that ETS is psychosurgery, nor my resulting damages, mental and financial. (see exhibit 52, Complaint)
4. Steve Glickman filed the complaint before giving me a chance to read it.
5. Upon reading the complaint written by Mr. Glickman, I immediately asked him to please amend the complaint, and to please include my injuries and damages.
6. Steve Glickman refused to amend the complaint, and informed me that I had a right to act as my own attorney.
7. Prior to retaining Mr. Glickman, I contacted Dr. Jeff Victoroff, an expert neuro-psychiatrist who was happy to dialog with me. Dr. Victoroff was very interested in my case, and stated in an email that he thought it would be very difficult to write music after ETS surgery.
8. In about Novemeber 2005, Steve Glickman stated that he had spoken to Dr. Victoroff, who had “changed his mind”, and no longer wanted to testify in my case. Mr. Glickman emphasized that I was not to contact Dr. Victoroff ever again.
9. Several times during the course of the case, I suggested to Mr. Glickman that we should request a copy of the EKG treadmill test performed on me.
10. Steve Glickman never requested a copy of my EKG treadmill test from Dr. Fischel, but he did remind me that I had a right to act as my own attorney.
11. Requesting medical records is “Standard Operating Procedure” in all medical lawsuits.
12. In January 2006, Dr. Fischel’s defense motioned to dismiss my punitive damages claim (see exhibit 53 - Motion to Strike Punitive Damages).
13. The statute of limitations in a fraud action is 3 years.
14. Steve Glickman stated to me that there was a separate 2-year statute of limitations on a punitive damages claim, and that we had missed it.
15. Steve Glickman refused to allow me to be present at the January 2006 hearing for Motion to Strike Punitive Damages. I asked Mr. Glickman if I had a right to be present, and he answered “Yes, and you also have the right to act as your own attorney”. At the hearing, Steve Glickman agreed to dismiss my punitive damages claim, without opposition.
16. Next, in about February 2006, Steve Glickman insisted that I dismiss my loss of earnings claim. Mr. Glickman never suggested my loss of earnings claim was without merit. Rather, he warned me that the defense investigation would go out of their way to cause problems with our biggest client.
17. In about February 2006, there was a Mandatory Settlement Conference. We met Steve Glickman at the courthouse and had lunch with him in the cafeteria. Mr. Glickman specifically forbid us from entering the courtroom.
18. From February through March 2006, Steve Glickman began insisting that I dismiss my entire case against Dr. Fischel. I refused, and I became increasingly confused and upset.
19. Mr. Glickman scheduled depositions of defense experts for February 6, 2006, and allowed a mere 1 hour for each deposition. For reasons unknown, these depositions never took place (exhibit 54).
20. In about March 2006, Steve Glickman said that if I still wanted to go to trial, he could not represent me. For about the eighth time, Steve Glickman said I had the right to act as my own attorney.
21. I felt I had no choice but to dismiss the case, so I did.
22. In February 2009, when I picked up my case file from Steve Glickman’s office, conspicuously absent was Dr. Fischel’s Educational CD-ROM video. Also missing were the signed declarations from past Fischel patients Chris Brody, Kerrigan Mahan, and Mitchell Zacarias.

Count 1 – Fraud

Steve Glickman intentionally omitted from the complaint all of my most serious injuries. This was a deliberate deception intended to protect the interest of Dr. Fischel. I relied upon this deception, and I was harmed by it.

Count 2 – Fraud

Steve Glickman intentionally removed an expert witness from the case. This was a deliberate deception intended to protect the interest of Dr. Fischel. I relied upon this deception, and I was harmed by it.

Count 3 – Fraud

Steve Glickman refused to request a key medical record (the post-op EKG) that was being concealed by the defense. This was a deliberate deception intended to protect the interest of Dr. Fischel. I relied upon this deception, and I was harmed by it.

Count 4 – Fraud

Steve Glickman conspired with the defense to fabricate out of whole cloth a fictitious 2-year statute of limitations for punitive damages in a fraud action. This was done to dismiss my punitive damages claim, protecting the interest of Dr. Fischel. I relied upon this deception, and I was harmed by it.

Count 5 – Fraud

Steve Glickman intentionally destroyed the CD-ROM containing audio-video recordings of Dr. Fischel giving an ETS surgery consultation, then deceptively claimed it had been “lost”. I relied upon this deception, and I was harmed by it.

Count 6 – Fraud

Steve Glickman intentionally destroyed signed declarations of 3 other Fischel patients. This was done to protect the interest of Dr. Fischel. I relied on this deception, and I was harmed by it.

Relief

My case against Dr. Fischel was winnable. Dr. Fischel claimed to have warned me of 6 side effects. But Dr. Fischel’s own website, and his CD-ROM video, and his prior sworn testimony, and his other patients, and my consultation notes, and his own consultation notes, and his own letter to me all support my position that he only warned me of 2 side effects. There is not a jury in the world that would have believed Dr. Fischel, if only they would have seen the evidence. Any attorney would know this. Any honest attorney would have been anxious to prosecute my case to the fullest.

Instead, Steve Glickman removed my neuro-psychiatrist expert, concealed my injuries from the court, dismissed my loss of earnings claim without opposition, dismissed my punitive damages claim without opposition, lied to me about an utterly fictitious statute of limitations, failed to request a key medical record, repeatedly threatened to quit as my attorney, failed to depose any defense experts, and ultimately insisted that I dismiss my case altogether.

Considering loss of earnings, my injuries, my pain and suffering, my damages are incalculable. My bizarre physical and mental disabilities continue to this day, and they are permanent. Your honor, I ask you to punish attorney Steve Glickman by finding him liable for fraud, and awarding monetary damages that you see fit.

Dated this 29th day of April, 2009

Alexander Baker
15911 Valley Wood Road
Sherman Oaks, CA. 91403

Original Complaint in Baker v Fischel

2009-05-02T10:48:00.000-07:00

Steve Glickman - Defendant's Trial Brief in Baker vs. Glickman

2009-05-01T13:38:00.000-07:00

Steve Glickman Commits Perjury

2009-04-30T22:44:00.000-07:00

Note: I'll be uploading scans of the relevant documents in the next few days.

Steve Glickman committed perjury today in Beverly Hills Court, and I'm preparing a mass email to publicize this important occurrence.

Under oath, Steve Glickman stated that he was substituted in as my attorney of record in the Fischel matter on October 12, 2005. Unfortunately, he filed the complaint in that case on October 7, 2005.

This matters greatly because Steve Glickman agreed, without opposition, to allow a Motion to Strike Punitive Damages in my fraud action against Dr. Fischel. This Motion to Strike was based on supposedly missing a 2-year statute of limitations given in CCP §425.13, which sets forth a 2 year statue of limitations on punitive damages against a health care provider. This limitation is from the date of the original court filing, and has nothing to do with the date of injury.

The original filing of my medical case was October 10, 2003. Thus, Steve Glickman was within the two year statute when he filed my fraud complaint on October 7, 2005. Had he waited until October 12, 2005, as he claimed today, in court, under oath, he would have missed the 2 year statute.

Obviously, Steve Glickman lied, under oath, about a material issue. As a forthright and honest attorney, and upstanding citizen, surely you will join me in denouncing this blatant illegality. Please forward to me any and all contact information of important citizens who deserve to know the truth about Steve Glickman. I will make sure they are informed. Rest assured my mass emails and publications will contain links to published copies of all the relevant documents, on the Steve Glickman Fraud blog.

Feel free to post comments here, or contact me via email.

acebaker1234 [AT] yahoo [DOT] com

Sincerely,

Alexander "Ace" Baker

Response to Declaration of Kay L. Kay

2008-02-07T16:08:00.000-08:00

Dear Ms. Kay,

It appears you are actively participating in the fraudulent practices of your boss, Steve Glickman. Based on your declaration, it appears you are lying in order to conceal Steve Glickman’s wrongdoing. Below is your declaration in its entirety (in shaded boxes), with my comments interspersed. First, however, I shall briefly summarize the facts that lead me to accuse Steve Glickman of fraud. I think you have a right to know. I also think the public have a right to know, so this material is published at http://steveglickman.blogspot.com/.

1. Steve Glickman deliberately concealed from the court a long list of my injuries, including damage to the function of my heart, my lungs, my blood vessels, my thyroid, my arrector pili muscles, my sensory nerves, my bones, my bone marrow, and other important organs, glands and muscles. My temperature regulation was damaged, as was my exercise capacity, as was my mental and emotional function. I had psychiatric surgery without consent. I was disabled, and the words “disabled” and “disabling” appear in the published literature with respect to type of injury I sustained. All of this was deliberately concealed by Steve Glickman.

2. Upon my asking Steve Glickman to amend my complaint to actually include mention of my injuries, as any honest injury attorney would want to do, Steve Glickman refused, and threatened to quit as my lawyer.

3. Steve Glickman removed a key expert neuropsychiatrist witness in my case, because this witness would testify that I had psychiatric surgery against my will.

4. Steve Glickman conspired with the defense attorneys to fabricate a fictitious 2 year statute of limitations in order to dismiss my punitive damages claim. Steve Glickman did not oppose the defense motion to dismiss this claim. I repeat, the 2 year statute of limitations was made up out of whole cloth.

5. Steve Glickman insisted that I drop my perfectly valid and documented loss of earnings claim. When I objected, again he threatened to quit.

6. Steve Glickman then insisted that I drop my case altogether, and said that if I did not, he would quit as my attorney and I would have to be my own attorney.

7. Steve Glickman lost a CD-ROM of mine that contained incriminating testimony from defendant Dr. Fischel.

There is more, Ms. Kay, but you get the idea. I have documentation for all of this. I repeat and re-allege that Steve Glickman is a malicious fraud. In my opinion, based on the evidence and my experience, Steve Glickman belongs in prison and should be stripped of his license to practice law. Steve Glickman repeatedly deceived me, I relied upon those deceptions, and I was harmed as a result.

DECLARATION OF KAY L. KAY RE TRANSFER OF BOXES TO ALEXANDER BAKER

I, Kay L. Kay declare as follows:
1. I am the secretary to Steven c. Glickman at Glickman & Glickman. If called upon to testify I could and would competently testify to the following facts as they are within my personal knowledge.

2. On December 13, 2007, Alexander Baker called for Mr. Glickman. Mr. Glickman was in a binding five day arbitration on a case called Siddiqui v. Kaiser. I advised Mr. Baker of Mr. Glickman not being in the office. Mr. Baker was insistent that he wanted to pick up his file right away. I told him I would try and locate the file and stated I knew it had been here for his pick-up for some time but did not know if it was still here.

3. At that time, I was unaware of the exact amount of boxes Mr. Baker's file was contained in, nor did Mr. Baker advise me of the voluminousness of his file when I told him I found three boxes.

Ms. Kay, you were the one who told me there were 3 boxes. I had never even seen my own case file, ever. How on earth would I know how big or small it was?

4. I e-mailed Mr. Glickman that Mr. Baker wanted to pick up his file as soon as possible and that I located the boxes in our office.

I prepared a memo to document the release of the file to Mr. Baker should at a later time this knowledge be needed, as I normally do in the course of my employ with Glickman & Glickman. I had made no copies.

I’d like to see a copy of that email, Ms. Kay. Consider this a formal request for that document. I did desire to pick up my file, but I never used the phrase “as soon as possible”. In fact, I was flexible. I expressed no extreme urgency. I ended up coming several days after I first called. What I did state clearly was that I wished to pick up “my entire file”.

5. At the time I was dealing with Mr. Baker, I did not know that the boxes in the office were copies of portions of the file that had been made back in 2006 by our then receptionist and that Mr. Glickman had transferred the actual original file to storage.

Having caught Steve Glickman lying about “no copies made” and lying about “my entire file”, now he’s evidently making you out to be a “loose cannon” who wildly assumes facts without evidence. I don’t believe you are the type of secretary who assumes facts without evidence. I think Steve Glickman told you it was my entire file, and that he told you no copies were made, and that when he did so, those were lies.

6. I also knew nothing of the hostility Mr. Baker had toward Mr. Glickman until Mr. Baker came to pick up the boxes. Also, I had not been actively involved in working on the case and I thus did not know the size of the file.

I would not characterize my feelings toward Steve Glickman as “hostility”. I would characterize them as “a strong desire that justice be done”.

7. When I gave Mr. Baker the memo to sign on December 14, 2007, the memo I wrote stated, "I have picked up my entire original file (3 boxes). No copies were made" (copy attached),
Mr. Baker wrote his thoughts on the memo, demonstrating his hostility toward our office. He did not mention that any materials were missing nor ln any way indicate to me that he was not being given all his file.

As we’ve now established, it was not my entire file, and copies had been made. One of the most important elements of the file, the Fischel CD-ROM, was discovered to be missing. Coincidentally, this CD-ROM contains material incriminating of Dr. Fischel. Given Steve Glickman’s consistent pattern of dismantling my case, and protecting Dr. Fischel, it’s easy to believe that Steve Glickman would destroy the CD-ROM on purpose. That’s certainly what I think.

I did indeed write upon the memo, but my words were an accusation of fraud against Steve Glickman, based on the evidence. They were not an expression of hostility. The word “hostility” does not appear. You have intentionally misrepresented my words. I repeat my accusation of fraud, while I deny hostility. Steve Glickman deceived me repeatedly, I relied upon those deceptions, and I was harmed.

8. Again, at the time I did not realize that in fact I was giving Mr. Baker copies of a portion of his file and not the original file.

You may not have known what you were doing Ms. Kay, but Steve Glickman knew exactly what you were doing. Either Steve Glickman lied to you, or you both lied to me.

9. I put the original memo which Mr. Baker signed with his hand written message to Mr. Glickman in Mr. Glickman's in-basket for him to see when he returned to the office.
10. On December 27, 2007, I returned from Christmas holiday and learned about my error in having prepared the memo for Mr. Baker to sign for "all his file". I also learned that Mr. Baker was threatening to sue Mr. Glickman "for fraud".

What you call your “error” in the memo are actually two deceptions by Steve Glickman (“entire file” and “no copies made”). But even if these were simply innocent errors on your part, they are unnecessary to the fraud case against Steve Glickman. Assuming for the sake of discussion that your entire declaration is accurate, I repeat and re-allege that Steve Glickman is a fraud.

11. I can only say, that none of my actions were deliberate and nothing I did was meant to defraud Mr. Baker in any way. I was only trying to satisfy Mr. Baker's urgent request to pick up his file while Mr. Glickman was out of the office engaged in the binding arbitration. I acknowledge that I made a mistake in preparing the memo for Mr. Baker to sign in the format it was in.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 27th day of December 2007 at Beverly Hills,
California.

I don’t believe you, Ms. Kay. I think Steve Glickman knew perfectly well that he was giving me an incomplete file, in particular I believe he “lost” the Fischel CD-ROM on purpose. There may well be other missing documents, I don’t know. I have no way of knowing. I think Steve Glickman knew perfectly well that copies of my file had been made. I think he lied to you, and set you up as “the fall guy”. He tried to get away with these two lies, and I caught him.

But again, assuming for the sake of argument that your entire declaration is true, Steve Glickman is still a fraud. He withheld crucial evidence, made up statutes that don’t exist, removed key witnesses, systematically dismantled my claims, and finally just quit and forced me to drop my case.

Steve Glickman, of the law firm Glickman and Glickman, is a malicious fraud, a liar, and a crook. Steve Glickman is evil, dishonest, dangerous, and a menace to society. Steve Glickman should be stripped of his license to practice law, and made to compensate me for the damages that he intentionally inflicted upon me. Steve Glickman should spend time in prison.

Sincerely,

Alexander Baker

Baker Contacts MediMultiMedia

2008-02-05T18:15:00.001-08:00

From: ace@acebaker.com
Subject: Request Copyright Clearance
Date: January 29, 2008 12:06:10 PM PST
To: info@medimultimedia.net
Cc: scg@glickman-law.com, Lebovits@dfis-law.com

Dear SIr or Madam:

I request permission to be in possession of a copied version of a CD-ROM entitled "Innovative Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery - RIchard Fischel MD, PhD, An Interactive Educational CD-ROM".

The copyright notice on the CD-ROM is:

"©2002, MediMultiMedia Inc. All rights reserved."

An unauthorized copy of this CD-ROM was made for me in order to replace a legitimate authorized copy of it that belonged to me, which was given to me by Dr. Fischel's office. My copy was evidence in a court case against Dr. Fischel, but my attorney, Steve Glickman lost it. Attorney Moses Lebovits has handled some other cases against Dr. FIschel, and one of his clients also has a legitimate authorized copy, and this was the one used to make the unauthorized copy I now possess.

If you are not inclined to allow this copy, I will return it to you, or destroy it, at your discretion.

Thank you.

Alexander Baker

Baker Questions Copyright Status of Fischel CD-ROM

2008-02-05T18:09:00.000-08:00

From: ace@acebaker.com
Subject: Fischel CD - Copyright Clearance
Date: January 29, 2008 11:00:42 AM PST
To: scg@glickman-law.com, Lebovits@dfis-law.com

Dear Steve Glickman and Moses Lebovits:

I have today received the copy of the Fischel CD-ROM that was made at my request. I had to pick the certified mail package up at the post office, it was not delivered to my house for whatever reason. I received the scan of the CD-ROM cover via email a week or two ago, but did not look at it until now.

Upon reviewing the artwork from Dr. Fischel's CD-ROM, I see that it is copyrighted. On the back cover is written:

"©2002, MediMultiMedia Inc. All rights reserved."

I am not sure who actually made the copy of the CD-ROM, Mr. Lebovits, Mr. Glickman, or someone else. The copying may have been a copyright infringement. While my intended reproduction and criticism of the Fischel video excerpts would surely be exempt from copyright protection under the doctrine of "Fair Use", I am not sure what the law has to say about making complete copies in order to replace lost evidence in a court case file. I simply don't know.

Evidently "MediMultiMedia Inc." is the copyright holder on this material. I don't know who or what that is. I request that someone provide me with a statement from MediMultiMedia or Dr. FIschel that they allow this copy to have been made. I had no knowledge that this material was copyrighted until today. Often promotional material such as this is not copyrighted. Had I known it was copyrighted, I would have insisted on a copyright clearance in advance of any copy having been made.

If copyright clearance cannot be obtained, I will send the copy back to its rightful owner, if I can determine who the rightful owner is. Otherwise I will destroy it.

Sincerely,

Alexander Baker

Glickman Letter 01-18-08

2008-02-05T18:05:00.000-08:00

Declaration of Kay L. Kay

2008-01-09T19:25:00.000-08:00

DECLARATION OF KAY L. KAY RE TRANSFER OF BOXES TO ALEXANDER BAKER I, Kay L. Kay declare as follows:

1. I am the secretary to Steven c. Glickman at Glickman & Glickman. If called upon to testify I could and would competently testify to the following facts as they are wi thin my personal knowledge.
2. On December 13, 2007, Alexander Baker called for Mr. Glickman.
Mr. Glickman was in a binding five day arbitration on a case called Siddiqui v. Kaiser. I advised Mr. Baker of Mr. Glickman not being in the office. Mr. Baker was insistent that he wanted to pick up his file right away. I told him I would try and locate the file and stated I knew it had been here for his pick-up for some time but did not know if it was still he~e.
3. At that time, I was unaware of the exact amount of boxes Mr.
Baker's file was contained in, nor did Mr. Baker advise me of the voluminousness of his file when I told him I found three boxes.
4. I e-mailedMr.Glickman that Mr. Baker wanted to pick up his file as soon as possible and that I located the boxes in our office. I prepared a memo to document the release of the file to Mr. Baker should at a later time this knowledge be needed, as I normally do in the course of my employ with Glickman & Glickman. I had made no copies.
5. At the time I was dealing with Mr. Baker, I did not know that the boxes in the office were copies of portions of the file that had been made back in 2006 by our then receptionist and that Mr. Glickman had transferred the actual original file to storage.
6. I also knew nothing of the hostility Mr. Baker had toward Mr.
Glickman until Mr. Baker came to pick up the boxes. Also, I had not been actively involved in working on the case and I thus did not know the size of the file.
7. When I gave Mr. Baker the memo to sign on December 14, 2007,
the memo I wrote stated, "I have picked up my entire original file (3
boxes). No copies were made" (copy attached),
Mr. Baker wrote his
thoughts on the memo, demonstrating his hostility toward our office.
He did not mention that any materials were missing nor ln any way
indicate to me that he was not being given all his file.
8. Again, at the time I did not realize that in fact I was giving
Mr. Baker copies of a portion of his file and not the original file.
9. I put the original memo which Mr. Baker signed with his hand
written message to Mr. Glickman in Mr. Glickman's in-basket for him to
see when he returned to the office.
10. On December 27, 2007, I returned from Christmas holiday and
learned about my error in having prepared the memo for Mr. Baker to
sign for "all his file". I also learned that Mr. Baker was threatening
to sue Mr. Glickman "for fraud".
11. I can only say, that none of my actions were deliberate and
nothing I did was meant to defraud Mr. Baker in any way.
I was only
trying to satisfy Mr. Baker's urgent request to pick up his file while
Mr. Glickman was out of the office engaged in the binding arbitration.
I acknowledge that I made a mistake in preparing the memo for Mr. Baker
to sign in the format it was in.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed this 27th day of December 2007 at Beverly Hills,
California.

1
DECLARATION OF KAY L. KAY RE TRANSFER OF BOXES TO ALEXANDER BAKER

Glickman's Attempt to Cure

2007-12-26T13:28:00.000-08:00

From: scg@glickman-law.com
Subject: Re: Return of CD-ROM, additional cause of action
Date: December 26, 2007 11:11:09 AM PST
To: ace@acebaker.com

I went again to our storage facility and looked through the entire file again. I could not locate the Fischel CD.

I do note that the CD is listed as Exhibit “8" in the Exhibit Notebook. Although I have several copies of the Exhibit Notebook, I do not have the original Exhibit Notebook. I suspect that the Fischel CD must have been in the original Exhibit Notebook.

I recall that at the time the case we settled, Clara had asked to pick up the file. I had my staff make a complete copy of the file at that time. After months went by and neither you nor Clara picked up the file, I transferred the original file to our storage facility. The copy of the file that you picked up recently was kept here in our office.

When you recently requested to pick up your file, I was in a binding arbitration. Kay indicated that you were insistent on picking up the file right away. Thus, I did not have an opportunity to review the file materials before you picked them up.

I honestly cannot say what became of the original Exhibit Notebook with, presumably, the Fischel CD. Since we have everything else that comprised the file except for the original Exhibit Notebook, my best reconstruction is that the original Exhibit Notebook was either returned to you or Clara shortly after the case was settled or was contained within the materials you picked up recently.

I suspect that Moses Lebovitz may have a copy of the Fischel CD. If you have not already requested a copy from him, and if you would like me to do so, I will request a copy for you.

I have attached PDF files of the declarations; I will e-mail you the two depositions on disk that I also retrieved from storage.

If you want to pick up the exhibit boards and a copy of the Exhibit Notebook, please call to arrange a time to do so. Steve Glickman 310-273-4040

Which Steve Glickman am I to Believe?

2007-12-26T13:26:00.000-08:00

Steve Glickman,

The document I signed when I picked up my file said that it was my entire file, and you've recently admitted that it was not my entire file, that additional file elements were present in a storage facility. Additionally, the document I signed stated that no copy of my file had been made. Now you say that the file has indeed been copied.

You'll note that I hand wrote a message on the release document with words to the effect of "Steve Glickman is a fraud". Based on the evidence, I repeat and re-allege that you are a fraud. I have no idea what to believe. Was my file copied, or not? Was it my entire file, or not? Have you really lost the Fischel CD-ROM, or not? Which Steve Glickman am I to believe?

Moses Lebovits may very well have a copy of the Fischel CD-ROM, as evidence in the matter of Brody v Fischel. I infer from a recent email to me from Chris Brody that this case is still active, as Brody repeated his request that I testify on his behalf. Mr. Lebovits subsequently informed me that he would not call me as a witness under any circumstances. I believe that, as it seems clear to me that Mr. Lebovits doesn't want to win cases against Dr. Fischel any more than you do. Recall that in the matter of Cushner v Fischel, Mr. Lebovits did not call his own expert witness, and did not call any of the several victim witnesses either.

Leaving that to one side, how could we ethically ask Mr. Lebovits to give me Brody's copy from his case file? This would appear to again be removing evidence against Dr. Fischel from public record. I submit that your idea of getting Brody's copy from Lebovits is further evidence that you support evidence tampering. Mr. Lebovits is copied on this mail, as is Brody.

If you would like to investigate the possibility of obtaining a new copy of the Fischel CD-ROM to replace the one you lost, I suggest contacting Dr. Fischel. Likely he has long since destroyed all of his copies, but who knows? Dr. Fischel is copied on this mail. Rick, you want to give me a fresh copy of your "educational" CD-ROM and get Mr. Glickman out of some hot water?

I am out of town until the first week of January. Beginning January 7, please give me some available dates to come to your office. When I come to your office, it will be for two purposes:

1. To pick up my entire file.
2. To have someone serve you with a small claims action for fraud.

I will ask $5000 in damages, and $2500 in punitive damages.

Sincerely,

-Alexander Baker

Notice of Damages, Opportunity to Cure, and Intent to Sue

2007-12-18T06:07:00.000-08:00

December 15, 2007

Steve Glickman
Glickman & Glickman
9460 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 830
Beverly Hills, CA. 90212

Re: Notice of Damages, Opportunity to Cure, and Intent to Sue

Dear Steve:

I seek return of the CD-ROM featuring Richard Fischel M.D. Ph.D. entitled “Hyperhidrosis Educational Presentation” (or similar), last known to be in your possession. Alternatively, I seek damages from you in the amount of $5000.00, the limit on a small claims action. The true magnitude of my damages at your hands goes far beyond the narrow issue of the CD-ROM, and is incalculable.

You were my attorney of record in my fraud action against Dr. Richard Fischel, from September 2005 until March 2006.

On December 14, 2007 I took possession from your office what I believed to be my entire case file from the matter of Baker v Fischel. However, conspicuously absent from the case file was a CD-ROM entitled “Hyperhidrosis Educational Presentation” (or a title similar to that) which featured a video presentation on ETS surgery by Dr. Fischel.

In November 2007, I was hired to produce an educational DVD video about ETS surgery entitled “ETS: The New Lobotomy”. For this, I have been promised a fee of $5000, and I agreed to produce it and to accept the fee. Excerpts from Dr. Fischel’s CD-ROM were to be featured prominently in “The New Lobotomy”. Relying on my knowledge that you possessed the Fischel CD-ROM and that I could retrieve it, I promised to be able to produce and deliver “The New Lobotomy”, including the Fischel footage.

Dr. Fischel has already been noticed of the intent to produce “The New Lobotomy”, and offered the opportunity to sit for an interview. However, because the Fischel CD-ROM is missing, the entire DVD project is in jeopardy.

That you fell below your ethical obligations by losing the Fischel CD-ROM is quite clear. What remains debatable is whether this was accidental or intentional on your part. I say it was intentional.

To prove my case in court, it should be your understanding that I will seek to show a consistent pattern of behavior on your part whereby you acted to protect the interest of Dr. Fischel, and to actively work against my interest, and also to work against the interest of truth and justice generally.

You and I both know I have considerable evidence to present to that effect. As just one obvious example, consider the defense motion to dismiss my punitive damages claim. It was said by the defense that punitive damages in a fraud claim carry a 2-year statue of limitations, and you stipulated to this, without opposition. It is quite provable that this statute of limitations was made up out of whole cloth. It doesn’t exist.

Please remedy the situation by finding and returning the CD-ROM, or by compensating me for my damages in the amount of $5000.00. If such is not forthcoming, expect to be sued in small claims court.

Sincerely,

Alexander Baker