Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: More Nastiness From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 09:10:18 -0800 Faithful Reader, I was just served with an Order to Show Cause why I shouldn't be found in contempt regarding th San Diego, Family Law order to pay child support. Now, mind you, I have paid child support faithfully, every month since Rosa climbed out from under her rock to testify for the scienos and seize my bank account; that's the first I knew where she had been hiding my child. I haven't made my payment yet for January. Could that be it? Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Followed & Served From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 13:20:27 -0800 Faithful Reader, The day started off with a bang (not literaly, thank God). I was off to get a cashier's check to send off (certified mail) to my loving ex-wife when I noticed a strange car cursing up and down the dead-end street that Priscilla's house is on. As I drove to the bank, the car followed me. Always 4 blocks or so behind. From my home all the way to the bank where I wrote down his license and lost him. I called Det. Osborne of the Glendale Police and reported the incident. The car was a late model white Ford Crown Victoria, license 3MRA779 (with KMA 367 license frame) and extra antenna on top. Obviously some jr Dick Tracy with a PI's license. Mid thirties, mustache and mirrored shades. Decked out to look like a cop. I have to laugh. Does anyone think the death-threat/joke by the "former" scieno security guard should be reported to Det. Osborne? If so, you can send him a copy at the Glendale PD, 140 N. Isabel, Glendale, CA 9120?. When the mail came, there was a love-note from my ex-wife's scieno-paid Century City lawyer. Well, actually a new lawyer on the "case." The first one was Fred Silberberg. The new one is Dominic Cantalupo, Esq. (no comment) He has filed a civil subpoena (duces tecum) ordering the bank to turn over my bank records from 1985 to present. This, inspite of the fact that my arrearages in child support have already been (for right or wrong) determined and I am up to date on my court ordered child support. I have to respond and file an oposition to the court if I object to my privacy being further invaded, the papers state. Don't you just love it? Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Reply to Harassment From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Date: Mon, 22 Jan 96 17:02:39 -0800 January 22, 1996 Doninic Cantalupo Fred Silberberg 1801 Century Park East #24 Los Angeles, CA 90067 By Telefax and US Mail (310) 556-0450 - Fax Re: Case # D200432 Rosa (Medvitz Erlich) Munsey Mr. Cantalupo & Mr. Silberberg: In the past week you and Petitioner have served me with three separate sets of papers: 1) an OSC for contempt, 2) a Civil Subpoena for my bank to turn over to you my bank records for the past eleven years, and 3) another Civil Subpoena for a former employer to turn over my personnel records. However, there is no evidence that the latter two sets of papers have been properly filed with the court. With regard to the OSC for contempt, I would first point out to you that since Petitioner came out of hiding with my child and seized my bank account last April, I have paid every child support payment required by the court. I have not missed making a single payment. I will provide you or the court with evidence of this. In the July 10th, 1995 hearing Judge Mason ruled, "For many years here, she was satisfied not to get her child support and essentially keep the child from him, and he was satisfied with not having to pay." Secondly, according to CPC 1218.5, the statute of limitations for such a contempt finding is 3 years. Thirdly, the matter of my arrearages prior to August 31st, 1995 was addressed and ruled on by Judge Mason on that date. Hence, my child support payment history prior to that date is res judicata. (a thing decided) The statements you sent me in October failed to provide an itemized bill or any documentation of what specific orthodontia was performed on Holly. I have neither the income nor savings to pay such a bill, in any case. In the September 6, 1995 hearing I was told by Judge Clements that such unpaid obligations would be added to the balance due on the arrearages, if I had an inability to pay them. With regard to the other two sets of Civil Subpoenas which direct my bank and former employer to turn over statements and personnel records to you, I again point out that the statute of limitations for contempt and related discovery is three years. Henry Marshall has already produced and been deposed regarding the personnel records you claim again to need. I have made all my monthly child support payments since I obtained the Petitioner's address. And additionally, the matter of my arrearages prior to 1995 was already addressed by Judge Mason in his August 31, 1995 ruling. If you pursue these filings, in spite of these obvious facts, it will be clear that you are engaging in malicious prosecution, I have never received page 1 of the Findings and Order After Hearing signed by Judge Clements. My phone number is 818/557-7271. I am currently unemployed. My Unemployment Insurance runs out in 2.5 weeks. After that I will have no income. I will have to borrow to live. If I do not have a job, my ability to make support payments ends at that time. Unless you inform me to the contrary by the end of business on Friday, January 26th, I will assume that you intend to pursue unwarranted intrusions into my privacy, to abuse your power as officers of the court, and to harass me with this malicious prosecution. Sincerely, Dennis L. Erlich cc (by mail): Rosa Munsey, Petitioner Henry Marshall, Photosonic Stacey Holcomb, BofA ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Family Court Filing From: inForm@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) Date: 6 Feb 1996 18:34:01 -0700 Faithful Reader: Early last year the scienos dug up my ex wife and got her to write a declaration to faciliate the unconstitutional raid on my privacy. During the raid they stole my bank statement and gave the account number to my ex. She then filed an action against me, seized the money in the bank account ($1500) and got a judgement of $40k against me for back child support and interest. Although the judge acknowledged that my rights to visitation were violated, he refused to find that the child had been concealed from me (which she had) because I had not hired a private investigator to find her, or reported it to the District Attorney. The scieno are no doubt financing her litigation against me. So far they have spent $15-20,000 to collect the $1500 I had in my bank account. They are not asking for repayment of legal fees because if they did, I would have a right to find out who is paying the attorney's fees. I suspect that the scienos have *purchased* the judgement from my ex and are using it to harass me and keep me distracted. Here is my most current filing. It is a motion to quash production of my bank records back to 1985 and my personnel records from my previous employer. I will have a hearing tomorrow in San Diego to determine if I am to be cited for contempt of court. Judge for yourselves. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS L. ERLICH 1917 Hampton Ln. Glendale, CA 91201 (818) 557-7271 Respondent - in pro per SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO In re the Marriage of: ) CASE NO: D200 432 ) Petitioner: ROSA MEDVITZ ERLICH ) DECLARATION OF ) RESPONDENT and ) Date: Feb. 7,1996 ) Time: 1:45 PM Respondent: DENNIS L. ERLICH ) Dept: F-5 Judge Barry ) __________________________________) I, Dennis Erlich, declare as follows: I am the Respondent in the above matter. I was served by the Petitioner with two separate Civil Subpoenas for Personal Appearance and For Production of Documents. One subpoena ordered my former employer to turn over all my personnel records and appear in court on the date above. The other subpoena ordered the Operations Officer of the bank at which I used to have an account to appear on that date and turn over bank records dating back to July 1985. For many years the Petitioner hid from me with the child and now she is attempting to have me cited for contempt. In the July 10th, 1995 hearing Judge Mason ruled, "For many years here, she was satisfied not to get her child support and essentially keep the child from him, and he was satisfied with not having to pay." (exhibit "A") [this is not exactly true that I was satisfied, I didn't know where the child or my ex was, she had taken the child out of state - violating the court's order not to] In his written ruling dated August 31, 1995 Judge Mason set the Respondent's arrearages for the period from July 1985 to July 1995. The question of contempt prior to July 1995 is therefore moot by reason of being res judicata. I have already opposed the subpoena for documents from my former employer by a previous motion to quash filed June 13, 1995. Despite the earlier motion to quash, the Respondent acquiesced and allowed the contents of his personnel file, along with payroll records to be forwarded to the Petitioner. The Respondent's former employer also was subjected to a deposition regarding these same records by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has now filed another invasive subpoena for the same irrelevant records. Prior to the time the Petitioner came out of hiding with the my daughter, HOLLY, and seized the my bank account, in April 1995, I did not have Petitioner's address to enable me to forward her child support payments. Since the April 1995 filing contained the Petitioner's current address, and despite being unemployed, I have forwarded every required child support payment to Petitioner. It should be also noted that I did not contest turning over the $1500+ seized in April 1995 from my bank account to the Petitioner for arrearages despite having had to borrow money to hire an attorney. In October the Petitioner forwarded to me un- itemized bills for dental work ostensibly done on HOLLY. I was not employed, nor did I have the income to pay the bills, even if they had been properly itemized. While I did have some temporary employment around Christmas 1995, my take home pay during that period was less than the $1500 net income attributed as my "ability to earn" by Judge Clements in the October 27, 1995 ruling. I am currently unemployed. My unemployment insurance runs out in 2.5 weeks. From then on until I find other employment, I will have to borrow to live. My ability to pay child support will cease. I have forwarded all this information to the Petitioner, asking her to desist from these unwarranted and burdensome motions. (exhibit "B") In spite of these compelling defenses, the Petitioner has gone forward with these wasteful motions. I believe these motions have been put before the court simply and only for the purpose of harassing me, invading my privacy and consuming my precious time. At this moment my elderly father is dying of a bone marrow disease. He has been adversely affected by the Petitioner's unrelenting campaign to violate my rights and inflict harassment upon me. The Petitioner is not on welfare. She has remarried and her husband is a San Diego County Sheriff. For the last 9 years the Petitioner and her husband have been responsible for depriving me of my rights to visitation and to participation in my daughter's life, yet the husband has not been responsible enough to adopt HOLLY. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 25th day of January, 1996 at Glendale, California. _____________________________ DENNIS L. ERLICH ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS L. ERLICH 1917 Hampton Ln. Glendale, CA 91201 (818) 557-7271 Respondent - in pro per SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO In re the Marriage of: ) CASE NO: D200 432 ) Petitioner: ROSA MEDVITZ ERLICH ) POINTS & AUTHORITIES ) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION and ) TO QUASH SUBPOENAS ) FOR PRODUCTION OF Respondent: DENNIS L. ERLICH ) BANK AND PERSONNEL ) RECORDS ___________________________________) I. A SUBPOENA MAY BE QUASHED IF IT IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE DISCOVERY "Not within permissible scope of discovery" is grounds for challenging a subpena for personnel and bank records. (Weil, R. Brown, I., 2 California Practice Guide, California Procedure Before Trial, (1994 rev.) $8:598, p. 8E-47.) Records which violate the "consumer's right of privacy in personnel records", and records that are not "relevant to the subject matter", and "unjustly burdensome demands", are not within the permissible scope of discovery. (Ibid.) In the pending motion which cites the Respondent for Contempt the Petitioner attempts to bring before the court instances of non-payment which stretch back ten years beyond the statute of limitations. Code of Civ. Proc. $1218.5(b) provides that, "If the contempt alleged is the failure to pay child, family, or spousal support, the period of limitations for commencing a contempt action is three years from the date that the payment was due." Other items requested by the petitioner are clearly not relevant. These items include "Any and all records regarding Dennis Erlich, SSN XXX-XX-XXXX, for the period of January 1, 1985, through and including the present, including, but not limited to, Dennis Erlich's personnel file...". Production of these items would also violate Respondent's constitutional rights to privacy. (Calif. Const. Art. 1, $1; Britt v. Sup. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844; Palay v. Sup. Ct. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 919 (U.S. Const.)). Although the right to privacy is not absolute, the court must carefully balance the need for the discovery against the right of privacy. The standard for disclosure is "a compelling state interest". (Britt v. Sup. Ct. supra, as cited in (Wiel, R. and Brown, I., 2 California Practice Guide, California Procedure Before Trial, (1994 rev) $8:294, p. 8C-59.) This court has the authority to quash the subpoena based on it being overly broad, an invasion of Respondent's privacy, and unduly burdensome. The Respondent's former employer has already produced for the Petitioner, payroll and relevant personnel records. Additionally the former employer was subjected to a deposition concerning the records by the Petitioner, prior to the July 10, 1995 hearing which set arrearages. The question of the Respondent's arrearages prior to that date was addressed in the Aug. 31, 1995 ruling by Judge Mason. The documents which the Petitioner is seeking relate to a matter which is clearly res judicata. Code of Civ. Proc. $1987.1 provides that the court, ". . . may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon such terms and conditions as the Court shall declare. In addition, the Court may make any other orders as may be appropriate to protect the parties, the witness, or the consumer from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of witnesses' or consumer's right to privacy." The bringing of this motion actually terminates the required production by both of the third parties. Code of Civ. Proc. $1985.3(g) provides: "Notice of the bringing of that motion shall be given to the witness prior to production. No witness shall be required to produce personal records after receipt of notice that such a motion has been brought, except upon order of the Court in which the action is pending, or by agreement of the parties, witnesses and consumers affected." For all of the above reasons, the records requested will not server any proper purpose in this matter, Respondent's right of privacy must be protected and the motion to quash should be granted. Dated: January 25, 1996 Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ DENNIS L. ERLICH in pro per Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * "There are two classes of citizen in the US: those who can afford 'equal justice under the law' and the rest of us."