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.
No comments:
Post a Comment