The Proof of Service is filed regarding the service by mail on the interested parties of the Amendment to the Second Amended Complaint naming Wells Fargo Bank as a Defendant and Co-Conspirator1, 2 with Haig Berberian.3
1 It should be noted that there is no generic Proof of Service filed in the case-file, nor is there a copy anywhere to be found, regarding service by mail on Haig Berberian, of an Original Summons (and complaint) after the case was (allegedly) initially instituted on August 30, 1983. Additionally, there is no Notice & Acknowledgment of Receipt signed by Haig Berberian and filed, nor is there a copy anywhere to be found, acknowledging service by mail on Haig Berberian of an Original Summons (and complaint). There is also no Proof of Service in existence, signed by a process server or sheriff and filed, regarding personal or “substituted” service on Haig Berberian, of an Original Summons (and complaint) after the (alleged) institution of the case on August 30, 1983. Why is/was this the case in all three service scenarios? Because there is/was no Original Summons filed period, and “Haig Berberian,” as an individual, was never, in any way whatsoever, served and thereby “summoned” initially period, one telling indication being that there is no Answer to said Original Summons (and complaint) filed by him or his lawyers (usually synonymous, except, of course, in this case) period, though I was clearly led to believe that “Haig Berberian,” as an individual, was indeed originally, initially, and in the beginning, served and thereby “summoned” to court at the outset of the case period (or un-period, whichever makes more sense). The very first documents filed in the case by Haig Berberian’s lawyers was done so on January 17, 1984, none of them being an Answer to the Original Summons (and complaint). (01/17/84 was also the date on which Wells Fargo Bank’s lawyers filed their initial documents in the case. Makes perfect sense being the mutual co-conspirators that they are and were) Because there is no “empirical” prima facie Answer filed by Haig Berberian (or Wells Fargo Bank) to the “phantom” Original Summons (and complaint) within the thirty-day legally-prescribed statutory time-period for doing so, it is more evident when examining the case-file that the curious course of the civil procedure for the rest of the case (which means the entire case, since it had no true beginning, as I see it), this “headless litigation,” was simply following suit (no pun intended), acting like it had no body to begin with. It is and was an empty suit. 2 Haig Berberian’s lawyers filed his first Answer in the case in response to my Second Amended Complaint. They did this cynically on Friday the 13th of July 1984. And as their 13th Affirmative Defense, they mysteriously raised the legal doctrine, res judicata. This doctrine means that the matter had already been adjudicated. (Who me? I never sued anyone before. Nothing had been adjudicated in the world that I knew and lived in then nor the world that I know and live in now) The lawsuit which was allegedly filed on my behalf was a pretend “phantom lawsuit.” It was tailored for one Berberian brother (Vasken) who thought that his son (Richard) had sued his uncle (Haig), Vasken’s older brother, who had no clue that he had been sued (not!) by his nephew [meaning me], me being someone who thought all along that his father may have had a long-standing continuing legal case against his older brother before he/I [meaning me] did, and I was worried that I might be schizo, despite the fact that I was being instilled, indoctrinated, infused, impregnated, inculcated, infixed, ingrained, and implanted piecemeal, in different stages along the way, with this entire scenario by none other than, of all people, my psychiatrist. (Those crazy Berberians!) (For more information on this, see Timeline at 08/30/83-05/30/90, “Case File 813484,” particularly the commentary and Footnote No. 1 thereof) 3 September 28, 1984 is also the date on which Haig Berberian signed his Last Will. Additionally, my business attorney, Rudy Bilawski’s letter to me withdrawing from my case is/was signed and dated on September 28, 1984. This is the most conspicuous curious co-event, if not “synchronicity” (and it’s not the latter because it is/was man-made) to be found in Richard Berberian v. Haig Berberian & Wells Fargo Bank. (One more September 28 “coincidence” happened four years later to the day. [Co-events can be a coincidence, three becomes a pattern] On September 28, 1988, the successor counsel to Larry Drivon, my trial lawyer, decided to file in my San Francisco County Superior Court case some of Haig Berberian’s Stanislaus County Superior Court probate files, most notably his September 28, 1984 Last Will. Professor of Civil Procedure, Terry Snyder, is the name of that successor counsel, since disbarred. Befitting the case, perhaps he took a procedural dive for The Brotherhood. He did move on to teach law at the Laurence Drivon School of Law)