Free Letter - District Court of California - California

i Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA Document 5-3 Filed O7/O9/2007 Page 1 ol 2
Fl LED rv
1 Alexis Mager Lakusta, JUN 0 4 ZUUT
in propria persona
2 1259 El Camino Real #245 "”"E°§]{§g;,l&EgPmv¤wm
Menlo Park, CA 94025 ·°"
3 (650) 566-9971
4
5
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9 .
In re: ) Case No.: No. 02-31521
10 ) Chapter 7
Alexis Mager Lakusta, I )
11 )
Debtor, Appellant g
12
v. ) STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE
13 ) ADDRESSED IN APPEAL FROM
Mark Evans, et al., ) ORDER DENYING DEBTOR'S
14 ) MOTION FOR ABANDONMENT
Appellees )
15 )
16 1 ;$_$Q§§ TQ BE ADQPEQQED IN [HIS APPEAL
17
‘ 8 Appellant respectfully requests that the Court review the following issues
A
in this appeal:
19
1. Given that the alleged settlement contract dated July 16, 2002 is devoid
20 of mutual consideration and that Mr. Evans was incapable of performing
on his promises, is the document entitled "Settlement Agreement and
21 Release" enforceable as a matter of law under the laws of this state?
22 2. Is the alleged settlement contract dated July 16, 2002 a subterfuge to
conceal deed forgery, escrow fraud, recordation fraud, and fraudulent
23 misrepresentation and to carry Out a scheme to commit bankruptcy
f cl?
24 rau
3. Was appellant's adversary proceeding filed on June 10, 2002 properly
25 dismissed?
STATEMENT or ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN APPEAL FROM
ORDER DENYING DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR ABANDONMENT - 1 -


_ , Case 4:O7—cv-03085-SBA Document 5-3 Filed O7/O9/2007 Page 2 of 2
1 4. Did the Court have jurisdiction to enforce the alleged settlement
2 contract?
3 5. Was the May 2005 trial decision obtained by a fraud on the court?
6. Did the Court err in ruling that the California Civil Code §1695 adver—
4 sary proceeding filed on August 5, 2003 was barred by the alleged
settlement contract?
5
7. Was the Court's denial of appeIlant's motion to disqualify Pahl and
6 Gosselin from continuing its representation of Evans in this case an
error of law? -
7
8. was opposition to debtor's motion for abandonment by Evans and
8 his agents in reality part of a scheme to conceal and to carry out
bankruptcy fraud?
9
9. Is Pahl and Gosselin's on-going violation of its duty of loyalty to its
10 original client and its relentless campaign of misrepresentation to the
Court in fact part of the bankruptcy fraud scheme and part of a scheme
11 to defeat the explicit findings, intentions, and purposes of the California
2 legislature as declared in the Home Equity Sales Act?
`
10. Did the Court violate appeIlant’s due process rights and commit
13 reversible error when it violated court orders and failed to address
appellant's "preserved" claims before making its rulings?
14
11. Was the Court's order denying appellant's motion for abandonment,
15 ordering "otherwise", and ordering the dismissal of the April 21, 2006
complaint obtained by a fraud on the court?
16
12. Did the order denying appellant's motion for abandonment and ordering
17 "otherwise" violate appellants inalienable right to protect his property
as guaranteed by Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution?
18
13. Was the abandonment denial order prejudicial and in violation of
19 appelIant’s basic due process rights?
20
Dated: June 4, 20_07 Signed: évxr , l\n.·.,,,:, LM.-elgtgild
21 Alexis Mager Lakusta,
in propria persona
22 1259 El Camino Real #245
Menlo Park , California 94025
23 (650) 566-9971 -
24
25
STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN APPEAL FROM
ORDER DENYING DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR ABANDONMENT — 2

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA

Document 5-3

Filed 07/09/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA

Document 5-3

Filed 07/09/2007

Page 2 of 2