Free Letter - District Court of California - California


File Size: 67.7 kB
Pages: 4
Date: November 27, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 1,099 Words, 7,058 Characters
Page Size: 614 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cand/192230/42.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of California ( 67.7 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of California
Case 3:07-cv-02400-SI Document 42 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 1 of4
f ’ i
Michael Petersen I il .5 3
_ P.0. Box 2462 {j
Visalia Ca. 93291 Aj! *~ ,
November 20, 2007 _~ _
Dean Elizabeth R. Parker > 7 q `
McGeorge School of Law V »»-/ .~ g __¤
3200 Fifth Ave 2 i ' J
Sacramento Ca. 95817 r '· .· .“ NOV Z 1 [QU]
Fax (916) 739 7330 j jg
Amy R Levine V*—¤~/ .ei/tal .1, ani
Miller, Brown & Dannis _
71 Stevenson St. 19th FL _
San Francisco Ca. 94105 ·
Fax g415) 543~4384
Re. case #C07~00646 LJ0
#C07~002400Sl
Petersen et. al v. McGeorge School of Law et. al , MDUSD et. al.
This letter is written in response to your response of 11/15/07 and 11/16/07 of
my 11/12/07 letter seeking possible resolution of this matter.
It is my intention at this point in time to drop claims on my own behalf if proper
resolution and settlement shall be executed on behalf of Michael Jr. and Ryan in the
very near future.
I propose we agree to take the matter off calandar and/or extend the filing date
ordered on 11/6/07 for plaintiff's more definitive statement due on 11/28/07 and
begin talks on behalf of the minor children including but not limited to reducing
their human dependacy, increasing their self reliance and to expand their productive
capabilities.
In light of McGeorge letter dated 11/16/07 and their recent verbal threat regarding
their position claim of judicial imunity and ultimatum for this plaintiff to dismiss
the case in return for McGeorge not to pursue malicious prosecution against this father
and for their attorney fees, this plaintiff requests McGeorge reconsider it's position.
Our federal Judge clearly held reservation of her ruling regarding McGeorge claimed
judicial imunity and administrative exhaustion in this matter and this plaintiff is
within his rights to file the more definitive statement.
As previously filed by this plaintiff, at a minimum McGeorge acted outside the scope
of it's jurisdiction and voided any claimed judicial imunity jurisdiction when they
violated Title #5, California Code of Regulations section 3089 pertaining to Special ·
Education Due Process Hearings. This statute clearly states the proceedings are exempt
from "non formal" hearing procedures thus rendering all the proceedings "formal"
requiring the implementation of the Administrative Procedures Act and more importantly,
the issueance of a Administrative Law Judge instead of the standard hearing officer
McGeorge issued. Additionally, the hearing officer was never served a summons in this
case and is not a party to this law suit. Therefore, the scope of judicial jurisdiction
alledged for the hearing officer is moot and non existant.
Moreover, such a threat of McGeorge retailiation and ultimatum to this father is premature
until such time as discovery is completed to fully inquire as to the actual private
services contract McGeorge entered into as, and for a agency created by the constitution
to protect the rights of all special education students which this plaintiff believes
also voids any claimed judicial jurisdiction imunities as a contracting agency.
Page 1 of 2

Case 3:07-cv-02400-SI Document 42 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 2 of 4
• Michael Petersen
` P.O. Box 2462
Visalia Ca. 93291
November 20, 2007
page 2 of 2
Futhermore, this plaintiff believes McGeorge is applying a double standard for their
benifit by utilizing recent 9th circuit opinions and recent education code
clean up legislation for their defences which were non existant in 2003 when
the violations they comitted against special education students occurred.
To this plaintiff's view, he to can apply the same double standard of tactic
as McGeorge clearly lost the private services contract with California Department
of Education in the year 2005 extinguishing any claimed judicial jurisdiction
imunities for this current law suit filed on 4/27/07.
Please consider and reconsider this plaintiff's proposal for taking this matter
off calandar and effecting settlement on behalf of the minor children.
V .
1 a ‘ éE?;>
c.c. Honorable Judge Illston
MDUSD Superintendent, Gary McHenry & MDUSD Board of Trustees
with enclosures

11/19/2@@'? Célee: 3dO7·CW @@ESdCHD@OO¤ memts4Q1e25Ei·mn1?1 /21 /2007 Page 3 of sro. v1 1 r¤a2
I ’ UNIVERSITY OF THE
McCcorgc School of Law
November 16, 2007 `
Mike Petersen ~
P.O. Box 2462
Visalia, CA 93291 · `
RE: Petersen v. SEH0 ct ul.
Case Number: C 0 7.024 00 ·
UPM uw Group
_ Dear Mr. Petersen:
3455 Fifth Avenue
~ $wam°m°‘ CA 9581* 7 Thank you for yotu letter dated November 12, 2007. My clients,
T°' °l6‘73°‘7336 McGeorge Law School and Mr. Pastorino, have asked me to respond to
im 916·739‘71°9 your letter regarding settlement of this case. My clients will agree not to
""'°@“°'"’°*·°°“‘ seek recovery of costs and sanctions in this case in exchange for the case
""’"'·”¤“"°“'·°°'“ being dismissed with prejudice. Moreover, they will agree not to pursue
any actions for malicious prosecution. However, because your sons are
A minors, a settlement agreement will either require court approval or some
sort of indemnitication language.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to pursue such an
agreement with McGeorge and Mr. Pastorino.
I Sincerely,
Senior Staff Attomcy
Pacific McGeorge,Seh65l of Law
A PL/sc
l.`|(Il_Zli('l.)‘i :-.,xI~; |·|a,tr1¢_‘|
“' "" `W W ` "Ce§e 0?07jcx7—02400—SI Document 42 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 4 of 4
AMY R. uavme MILLER
3JI£TSL“§Z.‘TIJ.i`.I1 BR~°WN
` DANNIS
SAN r‘»1ANclsc0 Af1’¤¤¤¤Y$
Novcmbcr I5, 2007
VIA. FIRST CLASS MAIL
'MIChaBl PCIGISB11 sum vuncrsco
P·O· B°" 2462 " 3$2Zf23Z.?.§'§§$
Visalia, CE11I[_O!'1'lia 93 291 _ sv. r»—mm·.¤. u rmos
rn 41s.w.·u n
‘ hx 415.>43.a3s4
Rc; M/cr/mel Pc/ersen, et al. v. Calgfamia Ajvecial Education Hearing Office, er nl.
· U.S. Dlsuict Com-: Case No. C-07-02400 S1 »¤~¤ ··=¤¤¤
Our filo 5 100.13607 ¤°’ Em °==···S*;j·;'y;;:
Lung Buch, (.A 90002
Dear Mr. Pctcrscn:
In rcsponsc to you con·cspondcncc of Noyembcr I3, 2007, Lhc District will consider any 5*** °"°°
resolution proposal you wish Lo make. ’§‘Q§,’{Q°f(§
San Diego, CA QZIOI
wa mn.s¤s.¤z¤z
VBTY truly yOLLl`S, ‘ _ Fu ¢Z'|9.701»6ZnZ
wwwrmbdlaw.co•n
MILLER BR & DANNIS
x
A y R. I vine
ARL/cmd

Case 3:07-cv-02400-SI

Document 42

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 3:07-cv-02400-SI

Document 42

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 3:07-cv-02400-SI

Document 42

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 3:07-cv-02400-SI

Document 42

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 4 of 4