The attached pdf file contains correspondence between me and the Law Firm of Lillick, McHose and Charles in San Francisco, the only law firm which took more than just a passing glance at my case file(s) after both my business and trial attorney withdrew their representation.1
During my one and only visit to the Lillick law firm on April 27, 1988, it was suggested that I and my acting “co-counsel”/confidante make a list of questions that we would like answered regarding my case and legal situation. I/we did this in my May 11, 1988 letter to Robert Fremlin and Christopher Lee, Esqs., both of whom were at the meeting. I cannot recall if they were the only two attorneys present, but they were the major participants, Mr. Fremlin being the senior of the two.
To my way of thinking, at this time and after more than twenty-five years of pondering the matter, the most important question which I asked in my letter was Question No. 1 on Page Five: “Do any of the documents support the ‘res judicata’ defense raised by Haig Berberian, et al.?” When reading their May 19, 1988 response letter, you will find that Lillick did not utter a peep about the res judicata defense.2 This is a glaring omission in their list of answers, because such a defense is not something casually raised. It is specific and there has to be some sort of substance to it. What court judgment or equivalent thereof, involving the same issues and the same parties, was rendered, making my lawsuit mute, obsolete, passé, what have you? I had never sued anyone before. And I had never been involved with the issues in my case prior to September 2, 1980, the date that I discovered fraud. Lillick’s deafening silence regarding the res judicata question (a common response among Brothers who have looked at my case) is an indication that Messrs. Fremlin and Lee cherry-picked what they wanted to answer, the res judicata issue being the most taboo and toxic of all.3 Both lawyers did not want to attach their names to any of their answers, signing their response letter collectively as, “Lillick, McHose & Charles,” even though my letter was addressed to Messrs. Fremlin and Lee in particular. (I guess that this way, I can conclude that their entire firm agreed with their opinions and answers in the May 19, 1988 response letter sent to me, though each did individually sign a succeeding letter or two as can be seen in the pdf file attached)
I also question why neither Mr. Fremlin nor Mr. Lee asked where a copy of the Original Summons was nor did they ask why Haig Berberian’s signature cannot be found on any document dated beyond September 2, 1980 (again, the date that I discovered fraud) within the file(s), aside from his signature on his Last Will (dated September 28, 1984). In other words, there was nothing in my files (which included the files of my erstwhile trial attorney, Larry Drivon) indicating that Haig Berberian was aware that I had sued him. There was no proof of service signed by a process server or sheriff verifying that he had been served with the Original Summons and Complaint (nor any of the succeeding amended versions thereof) and there was no Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt signed by Haig Berberian indicating that he had been served by mail with any document whatsoever (though Larry Drivon’s office led me to believe that the latter had occurred with regard to the Original Summons and complaint. See Timeline at 05/30/86, “Correspondence from Larry Drivon”). This is a pretty important point, a “glaring omission,” wouldn’t you say? Should not the main defendant know that he had been sued? The question itself sounds insane. When it comes to big cases (or suits of any size, for that matter), Richard Berberian v. Haig Berberian & Wells Fargo Bank is a one of a kind case, folks. An “insane” case. Once you factor in the other freak-factors in my lawsuit,there is nothing like it anywhere, and indubitably, a similar case cannot be found at any time in the past.4
Question 3 of my May 11, 1988 letter addressed to Messrs. Fremlin and Lee asks in part: “Was [sic] my original complaint and its amended versions properly drafted?” On Page Four of my letter to Mr. Fremlin dated October 22, 1988, Conclusion No. 4 states: “The original complaint and its successor versions were properly drafted.” One might think that this is a stretch, but, were the topic of my original complaint addressed by them, they might necessarily have had to address the “phantom” Original Summons. In other words, where the hell is it?!5 And who was originally “summoned” in the matter? Not Haig Berberian, folks, not Haig Berberian. He was home watching old episodes of “Dracula” and “Alfred Hitchcock Presents.”
1 I’ll say right out of the box here that from day one, the fix was in. This was true of each and every lawyer and law firm which received my lawsuit solicitation package. The pungent powerful pervasive penetrating putrid stink of their Brothers’ escapades and hijinks escaped the envelopes the very second they were opened. And that heavenly scent wafted out and then made a beeline straight into these potential counsels’ dilated nostrils, inhaling deeply the piquant aromatic bouquet. However, after a bit of a read, these Brothers (of jurisprudence) were well-aware and knew full well that despite the intrigue and their intellectual arousal, it was incumbent upon them to keep their collective proboscis out of this grand and glorious matter from (in my point of view) hell. A renegade/rogue ex-client was on the loose. 2 Were Lillick asked why they did not address the res judicata issue, they would throw it into the “black hole” contained in their May 19, 1988 letter to me. In the final paragraph on Page 6 of my May 11, 1988 letter to them, they state that I asked some questions that are/were, “outside the scope and purpose of our employment.” Folks, my one query about res judicata warranted a simple “yes or no” answer. Did they find anything in the records that I provided them suggesting that my entire legal matter is/was already resolved somewhere, some how, sometime past? Pretty mysterious doctrine raised by Haig Berberian’s lawyers as his 13th Affirmative Defense on Friday, the 13th of July, 1984. At the time that I was dealing with Lillick, I did not know that res judicata was such a critical matter. It was Question No. 1 in my letter to them, but only in the third set of three sets of questions. I had no idea that once I learned what res judicata pertained to, the mystery in my case would probably be solved. Had I known its importance back in the day, res judicata, in all of its present cryptic grandeur, would have been present 24/7, front and center in everything I did to solve the big question mark looming above this enigmatic mystifying case among cases. 3 Larry Drivon, the attorney who was representing me at the time that res judicata was raised as a defense, did not ask opposing counsel what this defense referred to. During the two years after this defense was raised, he didn’t utter a peep about it. You’d think that if the issues involved in the particular suit that Larry Drivon (allegedly) filed on my behalf were already resolved, he’d want to know about it. Not so. I would not know one thing about res judicata had I not asked my personal attorney about it while I was sitting in his office leafing through Haig Berberian’s attorneys’ Answer(s) to my complaint. (This was long after Drivon had withdrawn) Without batting an eye, no flinch, no nothing, he said that it means that the matter had already been adjudicated. Say what?! My confidante/friend who was with me at the time started talking to him at that point and I never got a chance to cross-examine my attorney about it, although the substance of his comment didn’t really sink in that much at the time. Soon thereafter, it was decided that res judicata was not a sincere defense. It would be months before my friend and I reconsidered and decided that it was indeed legitimate. Res judicata is and was significant. Opposing counsel could not play fast and loose with this particular defense. What res judicata refers to is the preeminent ongoing mystery in Berberian Mystery Theatre. 4 The most Byzantine ingredient in this case, at least as far as the “story” as a whole goes, is my former psychiatrist’s role, that of Arnold A. Sheuerman Jr., M.D., Stockton, California. (See Timeline at July 6, 1996, “The Hypocratic Doctor”) 5 It is only relatively recently that I discovered that I do not have a copy of the Original Summons (assuming that it does exist or did exist). No one, not one person, human being or other, has ever asked where that summons is. Judges are people, aren’t they? Aren’t they human beings? None of the several judges who sat on the case (with their dirty stinking “alien” asses), ruling on various motions in the matter, asked where the Original Summons was. None of them asked if the Defendant had been served with said summons. Wanna know why? Because they already knew about its absence and why it was in absentia. That’s why. Pretty simple. Conspiracy 101.