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