Attorney Timothy D. Ducar Accused Of Committing Fraud In Federal Court
Nevada Attorney Marjorie Hauf Accused Of Participating In The Fraudulent Scheme
FED FILING_BMO_REQUEST FINAL JUDGMENT_SUPPLEMENT FINAL 4
Brent Oesterblad, pro per defendant
20369 North 52nd Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85308
In the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John Doe #1, et al., ) Case No.: 2:13-CV-01300-SRB
- ) SUPPLEMENT TO REQUEST FOR ) ENTRY FINAL JUDGMENT
Brent Oesterblad, et al., ) PURSUANT FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b)
) Hon. Susan Bolton
Pro per Defendant Brent Oesterblad (hereafter, “Oesterblad”) submits a Supplement (hereafter, “Supplement”) to Request for Entry of Final Judgment (Doc. #461) (hereafter, “Request”) by this Court for case no. 2:13-CV-01300-SRB pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (hereafter, “Rule”) 54(b). The Request detailed the good cause for the Court Order of “final judgment” to be issued due to Oesterblad’s “pressing need” to seek legal remedies with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and addressing the malicious prosecution and abuse of process associated with the Plaintiffs and their counsel’s conduct associated with their filings in this case. Oesterblad predicted the malice demonstrated by the Plaintiffs throughout the litigation process would continue to be directed toward him and could only be thwarted by the pursuit of legal remedies that would be afforded with the issuance of the “final judgment.” The Request was filed May 25, 2017, in the SEVEN (7) MONTHS awaiting this Court’s decision some Plaintiffs have engaged in additional conduct of malice and abuse of process by fraudulently utilizing the rulings by this Court as a judicial system hammer against Oesterblad as he foretold would occur. The Supplement documents these new developments for the Court’s review.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
- Recap of Relevant Events Preceding the Filing of this Supplement
The Plaintiffs counsel has previously claimed Oesterblad “requests that the Court issue a ‘final judgment’ to assist him in pursuing retaliatory intentional tort claims against the individual Plaintiffs and their attorney” (Doc. #462, pg. 1:21-23). The Plaintiffs assertion is absolutely correct; Oesterblad has the right to pursue legal remedies with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to challenge the terms of the Order granting Permanent Injunction obtained by Plaintiff David Ellis (hereafter, “Ellis”) (Doc. #452). Also, as discussed in the Request, Oesterblad will be pursuing legal claims to expose the willful fraud perpetrated by the individual Plaintiffs and their attorney in utilizing this Court to effectuate their malicious prosecution and repeated abuse of process that occurred throughout this case. The Plaintiffs and their counsel actively engaged in a conspiracy to enact an “agenda” to circumvent the First Amendment rights of anyone even remotely associated with the Charles Rodrick (hereafter, “Rodrick”) websites providing profiles of the factual criminal histories of an individual convicted of a sex crime(s). Oesterblad’s legal objectives require a “final judgment” to proceed.
There is just cause to grant Oesterblad’s Request to have the case officially recognized as fully adjudicated with the rendering of “final judgment” as all Plaintiffs’ claims against him were dismissed by the Court (Doc. #287 and Doc. #320). All the remaining claims against Rodrick were dismissed by the Court (Doc. #371, Doc. #404 and Doc. #407) and/or addressed at trial rendering jury verdicts on July 1, 2016 (Doc. #435). A full eighteen (18) months has passed.
It has now been seven (7) months since Oesterblad filed the Request, which has been fully briefed before the Court. This Court has completely ignored a pro per Defendant in its non-responsiveness to Oesterblad’s Request. If a pro per Defendant is not entitled to the same considerations as an attorney before a U.S. District Court and/or specifically this Court, such bias should be disclosed to the general public. If Oesterblad’s Request was improperly filed and/or lacking legal validity, the Court should simply render an Order stating the legal analysis and/or validation in denying the Request. The previously unknown variables necessitating Oesterblad to revisit this matter is Ellis has initiated new fraudulent filings in the U.S. District Court District of Nevada (Reno) for case no. 3:17-ms-00008 (See, Exhibit A). This new legal action establishes another variation of abuse of process and malicious harassment in naming Oesterblad as a “Party” and the sole “Defendant” with clear intent to misrepresent the outcomes associated to the case before this Court as they relate to Oesterblad.
- Oesterblad Has Sought a “Final Judgment” in this Case to Thwart and/or Counter the Inevitable Fraudulent Schemes of Ellis.
From the inception of the Original Complaint filed years ago on March 20, 2013 (Doc. #1), Oesterblad has detailed with his filings that the basis of the lawsuit by the Plaintiffs and their legal counsel was founded on malicious prosecution and that they employed tactics throughout the litigation process constituting willful systematic abuse of process (Doc. #305, Doc. #317, Doc. #319, Doc. #359, Doc. #362, Doc. #448, Doc. #449, Doc. #451, Doc. #455, Doc. #457, Doc. #461, Doc. #463 and Doc. #466). These irrefutable documented facts have generally gone ignored by this Court.
Specifically germane to the Supplement are assertions put forth by Oesterblad in his Motion to Intervene filed August 4, 2016 (Doc. #448). Based on the multitude of experiences over several years in dealing with Ellis’ propensity to not only lie, but brazenly commit perjury under oath before courts portended continued retaliation was inevitable. There was no doubt Ellis would fabricate a false narrative of deceit concerning the Judgment filed by the Clerk of the Court on July 1, 2016 (Doc. #411) (hereafter, “Judgment”) and Permanent Injunction (Doc. #452). There was no doubt there would be further use of the courts by Ellis to falsely attack and harass Oesterblad in his quest for retribution against Rodrick. Oesterblad specifically forecast this eventuality by stating: “If the Injunction is granted it will also be misinterpreted and misconstrued at a later date that the claims against Oesterblad were ALL dismissed (twice) due to the Plaintiffs/Ellis not responding to his very legally sound arguments presented in his Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. #448, pg. 2:20-24). The Court denied the Motion to Intervene in its Order of November 9, 2016 (Doc. #452). Furthermore, Oesterblad addressed the continued malice of Ellis in his Request for Clarification filed November 28, 2016 in stating: “The notion that David Ellis is some kind of ‘victim’ here is absurd. There comes a point in which Oesterblad needs to protect his wife, family and himself from the constant barrage of online attacks via social media and websites doled out by Ellis. He seems to believe that the court’s protection is a one way street. Oesterblad has had all claims against him dismissed by this Court twice, and the Arizona Superior Court once. Yet, Ellis has exercised free reins to continue to disparage Oesterblad and his family. One of many such post-trial attacks against Oesterblad is Ellis’ continued false allegation of the Bellucci website to ‘extort,” and now has added ‘terrorist racket’ along with a call upon the Bellucci sex offender following to put ‘Oesterblad in prison’” (Doc. #455, pg.4:22-28 & pg.5:1-2). Oesterblad is not clairvoyant as he was not exact in identifying the scenarios utilized, but the general concept of continued attacks would in fact occur. It is a simple matter of understanding the “nature” of Ellis with the apropos calling upon the fable of the Scorpion and the Frog. Oesterblad fully documented with irrefutable support evidence the true “nature” of Ellis with his pursued further fraudulence directed against Oesterblad just as predicted. Which was the impetus to filing this Supplement to obtain the “final judgment” allowing Oesterblad to pursue the appropriate legal remedies associated with this case and circumventing the continued repugnant agenda of Ellis.
- A) Ellis Incorporated the Judgment from this Case in U.S. District Court District of Nevada (Reno) to Perpetrate a Fraudulent Scheme to Further Harass Oesterblad.
On September 1, 2017, attorneys Timothy D. Ducar of Scottsdale, Arizona and Marjorie L. Hauf of Las Vegas, Nevada representing Ellis, filed an action in the United States District Court District of Nevada (Reno) case no. 2:17-ms-00008 (See, Exhibit A). With a simple review of the Civil Docket made available through the PACER system it is revealed the actions taken by Ellis and his legal counsel. They filed the action captioning it as John Doe, et al. vs. Oesterblad with the specific designation of “Plaintiff David Ellis” and “Defendant Brent Oesterblad.” The “Parties” listed by Ellis only name Oesterblad as the Defendant (See, Exhibit B). There is no mention of Rodrick as being a Defendant. Specifically, Rodrick’s name does not appear in the PACER system as a “Party,””History” or “Related Transactions” (See, Exhibit C), nor does his name appear anywhere in the caption or the nine (9) noted records when reviewing the Civil Docket (See, Exhibit A).
To view this new Ellis case filed in Nevada, is to find Oesterblad named as a Defendant with what appears to be legally obtained Writ of Garnishment governed and validated by the U.S. Federal Court system. It becomes easy to discern a stratagem intended to utilize Oesterblad as a stooge in perpetrating a fraudulent scheme in the improper manipulation of the judicial system. It is an abuse of process to intentionally improperly commit abuse of process by naming Oesterblad as a “FAKE” Defendant. This is exactly the type of fraud and continued harassment Oesterblad alleged Ellis would continue to engage in to this Court in his previous filings.
- B) The Nefarious Implementation in Filing the Documentation in a Manner to Subject Oesterblad to Exposure of the Appearance of a Legal Obtained Writ of Garnishment.
With attorney Ducar having 25 years and attorney Haus 15 years of experience, the discrepancy of creating a “FAKE” defendant in Oesterblad was NOT some oversight. These experienced licensed lawyers actively engaged in facilitating a renewed effort by Ellis to utilize the judicial system to once again make false and fabricated claims against Oesterblad. The more accurate description is the planned strategy to give the appearance that Oesterblad had a significant “Judgment” that garnered a Writ of Garnishment.
On June 26, 2017, Ellis had obtained a “Clerk’s Certification of a Judgment to be Registered in Another District” from the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (See, Exhibit D). Again, the document is captioned as John Doe, et al. vs. Brent Oesterblad, et al.; nowhere does Rodrick’s name appear for review. There is an attachment to the Clerk’s Certification which is the Judgment document, where once again Oesterblad’s name appears prominently in the caption. In the body of the Judgment, Rodrick’s name appears as responsible for 50% of a jury award in damages. If someone was simply scanning these documents it would be easily missed in the body of the attachment it is Rodrick and not Oesterblad who the judgment involves.
To further this intentional rouse is the structuring of the filing listing Oesterblad as the sole “FAKE” defendant and no mention of Rodrick being inputted, thus the results of a search of the PACER case locator system provides the desired fraudulent result. The result of searching the case number or Oesterblad’s name will return a link to the Ellis filing (See, Exhibit E). If one was to search Rodrick’s name, the PACER system does NOT provide a link to the Ellis filing (See, Exhibit F). The point of such a contrary approach was the objective to mislead any inquiry by obscuring that the Writ of Garnishment had been issued in Nevada in regard to Rodrick thus creating a situation where its discovery would be highly unlikely. Naming Oesterblad as the “FAKE” Defendant created the needed stooge necessary to implement such a plan. The strategy would also potentially cause any number of problems, embarrassments, and/or confusion for Oesterblad in his personal or business affairs, which is exactly what was predicted in the Request would be the type of continued harassment and abuse of process of the judicial system Ellis would employ. The Court’s Order granting the Request will allow Oesterblad to address such malfeasance in the proper legal venue.
- C) No Effort Was Made to Notify Oesterblad He Had Been Named a Defendant in the Nevada Filings.
As further support that the Nevada filings were intentionally structured to obfuscate their true intent, no effort was procured to ever notify and/or serve Oesterblad the paperwork associated with the Nevada case. After years of litigation, Ellis is undeniably aware of contact information for Oesterblad. Although having the home address, cell phone number and an email address to reach Oesterblad, providing actual notice would have nullified the true objective of Ellis’ renewed harassment using the judicial system. Oesterblad is not difficult to locate, unless someone DOESN’T want to find him.
It has been conveyed to Oesterblad to no surprise that Rodrick did NOT receive any kind of notification and/or served any papers concerning the Nevada case as required. In fact, the officially stamped Writ of Garnishments filed list an address in Reno, Nevada that has never been a personal address of Rodrick’s. Again, there is no plausible explanation for Ellis and/or his legal counsel to not utilize the correct contact information for Rodrick in Arizona that has been used to exchange hundreds of legal documents over many years.
- D) The Current Fraudulent Scheme Implemented By Ellis in Nevada is Only the Continuation of Equally Dubious Conduct Demonstrated in the Case Before this Court.
Ellis has repeatedly demonstrated a propensity to have no qualms in lying and engaging in despicable conduct. Specific to Oesterblad, he has engaged in the repeated attacks through the judicial system, false complaints with law enforcement (FBI), defamatory online postings against him and his family members and blatant lies to main stream media outlets. After having all claims against Oesterblad dismissed in the Arizona Superior Court, his next efforts would be in joining the case before this Court in the submission of the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. #236). Oesterblad had all of Ellis’ claims dismissed after filing a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #305) which would render the Court’s Order (Doc. #320).
The Nevada case is just the continuation of the many Ellis’ lies, deceitful misrepresentations and abhorrent conduct that was on full display during the entirety of the case before this Court. Just a few of the more egregious examples of the disgraceful conduct that Oesterblad has previously documented to the Court for review:
- Ellis joined the lawsuit on March 3, 2015 with the filing of the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. #236). He would knowingly make false allegations including, but not limited to, Oesterblad had via Rodrick websites published accusations against Ellis saying he “was convicted of a sex-related offense” and “was required to register as a sex offender.” Ellis utilized the Court and major news outlets to advance this completely fabricated lie to discredit Oesterblad. These alleged posting never occurred and were the knowing concoction of Ellis and legal counsel Bellucci to create an apparent salacious story. Oesterblad would obtain sworn deposition testimony from Plaintiff Susan Galvez that such claims were all fabricated as an “agenda” of conspiracy that was the fraudulent foundation to the lawsuit (Doc. #461, pg. 7:3-18).
- On April 9, 2015 Ellis filed an Application for Temporary Restraining Order (hereafter, “TRO”) claiming Oesterblad had “blatantly and repeatedly published false information on a public website that Plaintiff David Ellis has committed multiple frauds, including but not limited to, approval of faulty untested aerospace parts at American Aerospace Technical Castings” (Doc. #259, pg. 2:21-24). Once again, the claims against Oesterblad were willful lies by Ellis. It would be undeniably established Ellis was well aware that derogatory online postings concerning American Aerospace Technical Casting did not originate by either Oesterblad or Rodrick. The sworn testimony deposition of Holly Johnson-Oates, an ex-employee assistant to Ellis, verified she had “witnessed first-hand” and authored and posted the identified content on RipOffReport.com (Doc. #449, Exhibit M). She would not only confirm the validity of the falsified aircraft safety test results and digitally forged supervisor digital signatures, but also two sexual harassment complaints against Ellis by two female co-workers who would be fired by the company as part of a cover up of the complaints filed. The accusations of Holly Johnson-Oates were credible and would instigate a criminal investigation by both the Department of Defense and the FBI (Doc. #449, Exhibit N). When Ellis had filed the TRO he knew full well Oesterblad was not responsible for the online postings in question. Holly Johnson-Oates testified to Ellis having other employees contact and threaten her to silence (Doc. #449, Exhibit M).
- The trial occurred in late June of 2016. Ellis would commit repeated occurrences of blatant perjury before the jury. This fact is verified with a review of a number of sworn depositions of Ellis, Lois Flynn and ex-wife Margie Ellis (Doc. #449, Exhibit S, Exhibit T, Exhibit U and Exhibit V). It was established through sworn testimony that Ellis had engaged in a number of infidelities during his 3 marriages, got drunk and hit his wife Margie, had a six month affair with Margie after falsely claiming his “wife and daughter died in a car crash in North Carolina,” supported his father after the conviction for child molestation of Ellis’ daughter, disgraced the U.S. Marine Corp by defying the Code of Conduct of an Officer and admitted to including Oesterblad in the Arizona Superior Court lawsuit not because of any of the alleged allegations but solely due to the working business relationship with Rodrick.
It is for these listed documented facts that Oesterblad has filed the Request, he has solid legal and factual basis well established to seek legal remedies for the actions perpetrated by Ellis over several years and multiple court filings. The Nevada case is only the latest infractions of abuse of process and active harassment of Oesterblad that was foretold in previous filings and emphasizes the importance of obtaining the “final judgment.”
III. The Plaintiffs Claim the Clerk of the Court’s Filing the Jury Verdicts on July 1, 2017 Constitutes “Final Judgment” in Regard to the Claims Dismissed Against Oesterblad
It is a ridiculous assertion by the Plaintiffs citing three times in their Response that the Judgment filed by the Clerk of the Court on July 1, 2016 (Doc. #411) constitutes this Court’s Final Judgment. The only reference to Oesterblad that appears on this document is the caption listing him as a Defendant along with “et al.” There is no rendering of a “Judgment” in any form within this document as it would apply to Oesterblad. All Plaintiffs claims being dismissed by the Court’s Orders of June 9, 2015 and September 4, 2015 (Doc. #287 and Doc. #320). Nothing in this Judgment cited by the Plaintiffs addresses the dismissed claims against Oesterblad, let alone mentions his name to constitute a “separate document” as the Request is seeking clarity and confirmation.
The Judgment was filed by the Clerk of the Court pursuant F.R.C.P. 54(b)(1)(A) as required. However, the Jury Verdicts documented in the Judgment have absolutely nothing to do with Oesterblad’s circumstances associated to the case. It is NOT an Order signed by the Court constituting “Final Judgment” that is required pursuant F.R.C.P. 58(a), “every judgment and amended judgment MUST be set out in a separate document.” This has not occurred despite Oesterblad’s Request and the inordinate time of seven (7) months awaiting the Court’s ruling.
Contrary to the Plaintiffs assertion that the Judgment entered on July 1, 2017 (Doc. #411) constitutes “Final Judgment,” it does not meet the requirement of F.R.C.P. 54(b) that “a district court must  determine that it has rendered a ‘final judgment,’ that is a judgment that is ‘an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” E.g., Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC. 422 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 445 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). The necessity for this requirement becomes self-evident in complex cases involving multiple parties with distinctly different issues, outcomes and potential for appeals such as the circumstances that have been before the Court with this case.
The filing of the Request by Oesterblad is merely the attempt by a pro per litigant to abide by and have honored the dictates of the Rules; specifically those defined pursuant Rule 58(d). There is further clarification offered by “Committee Notes on Rules – 2002 Amendment:
“New Rule 58(d) replaces the provision that attorneys shall not submit forms of judgment except on direction of the court. This provision was added to Rule 58 to avoid the delays that were frequently encountered by the former practice of directing the attorneys for the prevailing party to prepare a form of judgment, and also to avoid the occasionally inept drafting that resulted from attorney-prepared judgments. See 11 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 2d, §2786. The express direction in Rule 58(a)(2) for prompt action by the clerk, and by the court if court action is required, addresses this concern. The new provision allowing any party to move for entry of judgment on a separate document will protect all needs for prompt commencement of the periods for motions, appeals, and execution or other enforcement.”
WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Oesterblad respectfully requests the Court for an Entry of Final Judgment as all the Plaintiffs claims against him were dismissed by the Court thirty (30) months ago. Furthermore, all claims by the Plaintiffs were fully adjudicated concerning all defendants resulting in the conclusion of the litigation process through a trial with verdicts rendered almost eighteen (18) months ago. Even with the extended lapse of time since the case was fully litigated before this Court, no Order of Final Judgment has been signed and entered. Oesterblad continues to experience malicious prosecution and harassment as a direct result of this case such as the misconduct detailed being perpetrated by Ellis in the new filing in the U.S. District Court District of Nevada (Reno). The Court’s Order of Final Judgment is warranted with good cause.
 E.g. –The Scorpion and the Frog http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?4&TheScorpionandtheFrog