---
On March 17, 2015, just a couple of days ago, I had a hearing at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Los Angeles. I thought that after what happened at the last hearing in January, Jason Fisher would ask to withdraw as the attorney of record. In addition, he had refused to accept service of the demand for arbitration on behalf of Victor. He made it clear, through an email to the ICDR (International Centre for Dispute Resolution), that he had not been retained nor would he accept service of the demand for arbitration. He, of course, waited 12 days to inform us (ICDR and me) of this - just two days before our first scheduled administrative conference call.
Attorney Jason Fisher stated that I had to serve Victor Alfieri with the Demand for Arbitration separately. I had to start from square one again -- just as if I did not have the case pending in court? I remember that during the hearing in January, the judge said that we would stipulate to arbitration. Mr. Fisher refused to agree to that stipulation. However, the judge made it clear that we were going to arbitration. Attorney Jason Fisher was present at the hearing. He was and is still representing Victor Alfieri. He has the DUTY to inform his client of anything that happens during any hearing and with his case -- that includes ARBITRATION. So why do I have to start this process again with Victor separately?
Because if I did not get this arbitration process started by March 17, my case would be immediately dismissed and Mr. Fisher could again try to "collect" attorney's fees from me. The judge clearly said that she would deny that request. But Mr. Fisher probably thought that he would be entitled to make that demand if I were to fail to start the arbitration process.
Victor was served separately. ICDR, Victor and I started to communicate via email. We set up the administrative conference call two weeks later, as requested by Alfieri. The evening prior to our call, scheduled for last Friday, March 13, at 8 am, Victor asked for more time as he had just retained a new attorney (whose name I will keep confidential). Alfieri waited 2 weeks to notify ICDR and me of this. We had no conference call but ICDR set up deadlines for documents and comments.
Now, let's go back to the hearing I had two days ago-- Jason Fisher, Alfieri's attorney of record, was present. He, again, was rude and avoided to look at me in the eye. His rudeness was not a surprise to me. What was a surprise to me was what he did during the hearing.
What you will read next is my personal account of what took place. It is really too bad that Los Angeles Superior Court does not have court reporters for this type of hearings. This means that there is no official court record of what is being said. So we could say that this post will serve as a "record" of what happened on Tuesday. I swear that all the statements I am writing in this post -- and all my posts, for that matter -- are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Jason Fisher told the judge that he had no idea if the arbitration process had started or if anything had been done about it. "Your Honor, may I say something for the record?" I asked. She responded, "there is no record." That was correct. There was no court reporter taking down what was being said. "May I state something, then, your Honor?" She politely responded, "of course."
I stated that opposing attorney had been served with the Demand for Arbitration and refused to accept service. I added that he took about 12 days to notify ICDR and me that he was not the attorney representing Alfieri in the arbitration process. His refusal to accept service and failure to give timely notification had delayed the process two weeks.
The judge then looked at him and asked, "counsel, you are not representing the respondent in this matter?" He responded, "I have not been retained yet." Puzzled, the judge asked, "what are you doing here, then?" He then went to explain that he was indeed the attorney of record for the case in court (LASC) but not for arbitration.
Jason Fisher then said that he had not received anything related to arbitration and had not had any communication on this issue (process). He wanted to play dumb? So this is the first time he hears anything about my demand for arbitration? Really? "That is a lie! And I have proof of it, right here in my hand," I said, clearly and loud enough for everyone to hear as I raised my right hand showing copies of emails and communication exchanged among ICDR, Mr. Fisher and me.
The judge said, "this is not starting well." I explained that opposing counsel would not return my phone calls or emails. This statement is totally true. The judge asked me if I had been represented by counsel before. I told her that I had always been pro se and that Mr. Fisher continued to refuse to communicate with me. The judge said that this had to change, that there should be communication between us.... and if I had been the judge, I would have added, "and the parties shall treat each other with courtesy and respect."
Right before our short hearing ended, I asked the judge, "Your Honor, may I provide counsel copies of all communication we've had related to arbitration, including his own communications?" She smiled and said, "sure, go ahead." I heard a couple of people laugh in the back of the courtroom. I handed him the demand for arbitration (this would be the 4th time he would get it) and a set of copies of different emails we exchanged among us and ICDR. He accepted the papers I offered but did not dare to look at me directly.
Why did attorney Jason Fisher blatantly lie to the judge? Did he think I would not notice that his statements did not match the facts? Did he think he could get away with lying because there was no record taken during the hearing?
Or there could be a different scenario. Scenario 2 -- negligence on Mr. Fisher's part. But this would not speak well of him or any attorney and his work ethics. Even if the reason for giving false statements to the judge in this case were negligence, it would be undeniable that lies were used to cover his careless and irresponsible actions. So that takes us back to Scenario 1, "Jason Fisher purposely lied to the judge during the hearing."
Well, what if he did not purposely lie? This puts us in Scenario 3 -- Maybe he gave false statements unintentionally and without true awareness. He could have forgotten he received the demand for arbitration three times -- first, from me, then, from a process server and from ICDR. Maybe he also forgot he wrote to ICDR and to me (12 days after service) claiming he had not been retained by Alfieri and could not accept service. Maybe Alfieri's chronic amnesia is contagious. I can only speculate to the extent of his memory loss. What I can say is that if this attorney is truly suffering from amnesia (just as Alfieri), I surely hope that the copies of those emails and letters I provided to him in court yesterday will help refresh his recollection.
There is no such thing as a little lie or a big lie. A lie is a lie. Even "white lies" are lies. Lies can turn us into slaves -- prisoners of our own distorted reality. The good news is that every time we lie, we are aware we are doing so -- we feel we are going against ourselves. Because we all seek the truth and strive to live by it, why not make it a practice to tell the truth at all times? All we have to do is first go deep into our heart, as that is where the TRUTH resides. Then whatever we have to express will certainly be the truth -- a truth that will not create conflicts or hurt others.... because it is coming from a place of love. And love is the ultimate TRUTH.
Well, what if he did not purposely lie? This puts us in Scenario 3 -- Maybe he gave false statements unintentionally and without true awareness. He could have forgotten he received the demand for arbitration three times -- first, from me, then, from a process server and from ICDR. Maybe he also forgot he wrote to ICDR and to me (12 days after service) claiming he had not been retained by Alfieri and could not accept service. Maybe Alfieri's chronic amnesia is contagious. I can only speculate to the extent of his memory loss. What I can say is that if this attorney is truly suffering from amnesia (just as Alfieri), I surely hope that the copies of those emails and letters I provided to him in court yesterday will help refresh his recollection.
Which scenario do you think explains what happened in court on Tuesday? Intentional Lies, Negligence.... or Amnesia? Do you believe there could be a good reason for an attorney to intentionally lie in court? Are there good reasons to lie in any other situations? Feel free to share your thoughts.
ARE ALL LIES THE SAME?
There is no such thing as a little lie or a big lie. A lie is a lie. Even "white lies" are lies. Lies can turn us into slaves -- prisoners of our own distorted reality. The good news is that every time we lie, we are aware we are doing so -- we feel we are going against ourselves. Because we all seek the truth and strive to live by it, why not make it a practice to tell the truth at all times? All we have to do is first go deep into our heart, as that is where the TRUTH resides. Then whatever we have to express will certainly be the truth -- a truth that will not create conflicts or hurt others.... because it is coming from a place of love. And love is the ultimate TRUTH.
Disclaimer – As of October 15, 2018, all legal issues have been resolved. This resolution was reached during arbitration. There are no pending issues related to fraud or theft. The resolution was mutually agreeable. There will be no more posts written about this story.
